-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing-shotgun/belmont-shore-bar-scene-finally-draws-a-crowd-of-cops/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Words do not produce revolutionary culture change but original thought, passion, leadership and action do. Greet used 1303 word in his last post. Too bad he had to spend hours typing and copying out a famous quotes compendium to respond. Anyone wade through Greet's last stack of endless monotone platform parsing about intellectual honesty? I only used 104 words this post. That leaves me with with over a 1000 left to get my ideas across. Maybe less is more?
"Pardon me", but I would rather have a beer with" honest" Mike Ruhle than "suffer" with John Greet.
But perhaps achieving clearer understanding and agreement is not your goal.
It is true that I am sometimes verbose. This accusation has already been offered, many times, and fully acknowledged. Can you perhaps move on from judging my communications skills now and at least make even the shallowest of attempts to discuss and either accept or refute the actual issues, principles and concepts that I have offered?
May I respectfully suggest that you attempt to deal with the merits of my arguments (or lack thereof), rather than hyper-emphasizing what you believe to be their grammatical shortcomings?
And you don’t consider your statement “at least make even the shallowest of attempts” to be insulting?
You deny and whine when others point out your self serving and hypocritical positions but then have the audacity to say, “But perhaps achieving clearer understanding and agreement is not your goal.”
Your objectivity and trustworthiness is unworthy of respect and further comment. You have achieved the pinnacle failure of being a lobbyist willing to prostitute your opinions for the right price.
John it's a free country, and thanks for wearing the badge and keeping it that way.
But, your posts are ridiculous.
Best regards.
The very people who you discount in your windy apologist The District Weekly posts have been active in voicing their concerns about LB government transparency, accountability, buddy loans, misspending, corrupt land swaps, destruction of wetlands, campaign reform, Brown Act violations, lobbyist reform, and public records issues. Our numbers are growing and we are organizing and spreading information about the illegal and unfortunate way our government operates. Our mission is to change Long Beach government so that it benefits everyone, not just a politically connected few.
In 1776 people like Ruhle and many of us would out in the streets pushing for freedom and democracy. Someone like you Greet would be writing to maintain the status quo while protecting his British pension and salary. Greet you do not have the guts or courage to change government.
Concerning Maligning:
I do not malign people. I sometimes take exception to some of their behaviors, just as they sometimes take exception to mine. Why is it when others take me to task it is somehow exceptable, even commendable, but when I take others to task I am "maligning" them?
Disingenouous much?
I take exception to a refusal, on the part of some, to dispose of resorting to the juvenile hurling of insults during an argument. I take exception to a refusal, on the part of some, to maintain civility and respect in their discourse. I take exception to the habit, employed by some, of resorting to rumor, hearsay, hyperbole, false or incomplete information and unfounded conclusions to present and to support their arguments.
Concerning Patriotism, Revolution and Effective Dissent:
Merely, voicing one's concerns about government does not make one a "Patriot", sunshine. Merely organizing and spreading (sometimes) erroneous information does not a "Revolutionary" make. Unless and until such people can prove effective at encouraging and motivating constructive and positive change, all their aforementioned maligned behaviors do is make them little more than loud and foul-mouthed, untruthful and ineffective malcontents.
Simple dissent is not sufficient. Effective dissent is required if one is to be successful in changing government. To be effective, I believe dissent should be factual, reasonable, civil and intellectually honest. The dissent I read from some here is none of these.
J. William Fulbright once said: "In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.
I would argue that the dissent offered by some is failing the test of effectiveness.
"Patriotic", sunshine? "Revolutionaries"? Our definitions of both clearly differ. G.B. Shaw once opined: "Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it".
I believe that a free people in a self-governed and free and civil society have certain responsibilities: to themselves, to others, to their society and to their world. One of those responsibilities is to participate in the process of government in a *constructive*, *honest* and *intelligent* manner.
I do not believe that some here participate in this manner. This I find annoying because when they do not do so their sometimes-considerable efforts become at once wasted and thoroughly counter-productive. They do their various, and often *very legitimate*, causes far more harm than good. They alienate, anger and insult some of the very people they should learn to cooperate and find some common ground with.
How incredibly wasteful!
Concerning the Status Quo:
Please do not mistake my desire for reasoned, honest and civil discourse with complete contentment with the way we sometimes do things here in Long Beach. The sum total of my comments, here and elsewhere, will prove that I take considerable issue with the occasionally slipshod, irresponsible and ineffective manner in which we govern ourselves here.
I do not advocate for the status quo in government unless (and this is admittedly proving less and less common) what we are doing *through* government is truly best serving the needs of the majority in our society as constrained by applicable law. If we are doing something right, I hope you will agree it should not be changed and, thus in those cases, the status quo should, indeed, be maintained.
But, unlike some, I lay the ultimate blame for the various symptoms of poor self-government at the feet of those who helped to create and who perpetuate them...the People...as represented by a majority of the electorate, and not those they elect to represent them.
Some say we "get" the government we deserve. As if our government is somehow handed to us from some nebulous elsewhere...as if it springs forth fully developed from some public policy vacuum...as if we have neither say in nor control of it.
I say we *create* and *maintain* the government we have, whether through our intelligent and attentive construction or through our apathy and ignorance.
I say that if we are unhappy with our local (or State or federal) government, we must first look to ourselves. In so looking we must commit to seeing clearly and evaluating honestly. Then, and only then, should we act to affect governmental change. And in acting, we should do so constructively, efficiently and effectively. I see very little evidence of any of this method in some who post here.
And so I take exception.
Concerning “Guts and Courage”:
No "guts or courage to change government", sunshine? I do not presume to judge your own such "guts or courage" in this area, why do you feel it necessary to judge mine? Do you know me? Do you have *any* idea of the efforts I engage in to correct what I perceive are errors in the manner in which we govern ourselves? I think you do not. Like some others, you appear to rely solely upon what you perceive to form your judgments...forgetting that what we, as humans, perceive cannot possibly be the sum total of what is. Because our perception is necessarily finite and incomplete and sometimes otherwise flawed; presuming to judge others based solely upon that perception is patently erroneous and unjust.
Since you do not know all that you might about me, is it truly appropriate for you to presume to judge me in the "courage and guts" area? Were I to judge you in this area, you would no doubt find this inappropriate and unacceptable. Why, then, is it appropriate and acceptable for you to so judge me? Do I truly lack “courage and guts”, sunshine? Or do you simply fail to perceive the manner in which I choose to demonstrate them? Or, if you do perceive them, do you simply disagree with the manner I have chosen? Can you not simply disagree with me or my methods without resorting to insult and assumption?
Concerning our American Revolution:
During our American Revolution we were fighting against a monarchy, against tyranny and against despotism. To attempt to draw similarities between those efforts and these is patently erroneous and, I believe, does grave insult to the *true* patriots of that day. I encourage you to either read or to re-read our Declaration of Independence and be reminded of the challenges we faced back then and why we resorted to revolution to address them.
Concerning Pension and Salary:
Do you believe that my "pension and salary" or that of my colleagues' is somehow less worthy of "protecting" than your own or anyone else's? Are our families somehow less worthy of being properly cared for and supported than yours? Are we not just as deserving of fair and proper remuneration for our labor as you or anyone else? If you do *not* believe these things, then why do you find fault with me for my attempts to protect them?
Please pardon me if I offend you or anyone else here. It is not my intent to offend; merely to observe, to comment with intellectual honesty and in a civil and intelligent manner upon my observations; and to offer what I believe to be some reasonable solutions to the challenges that are brought forth here.
Concerning Effective Expression:
I understand that some dislike the manner in which I choose to express myself. So be it.
But whose message ultimately suffers more greatly I wonder: His that is predominantly verbose but respectful, factual and civil or his that is predominantly terse, but insulting, inconsiderate and intellectually dishonest?
Reasonable readers must necessarily draw their own conclusions. And that's precisely as it should be.
What a spoiled, self centered , overly self impressed ego maniac, said one. Another commented that he was acting like a baby having his bottle taken away from him. In this case, it is around 100 proof.
The BSRA Meeting was very interesting. The bar crowd really showed their colors, and they were not pretty.
Nice job BSRA. You helped show the community how greedy some people are, and how hard they clutch to their little franchises.
It was like watching a parade of whining weasel's at times. Even a fat, lazy Landlord showed up to make a big scene, huff and puff ineffectively, and act like a soiled child who was not getting his way. It was hilarious to observe.
3 Attorneys met before and after, and are working upon some interesting, and expensive sanctions, or remedies of some related matters.
An the Councilman even had an aide their to vote in support of the Bars and against the Residents Association. Telling.
Parking Commission Vice Chairman Bill Lorbeer and his wife chose not to renew their $10 membership dues to remain BSRA members and then made a scene when they were not allowed entry into the meeting for BSRA members-only. This comes after 3 emails and a regular postal mail notice were sent to Mr. Lorbeer that ONLY BSRA members would be allowed to vote in the meeting. Furthermore, a separate letter was sent to Mr. Lorbeer reminding him that his membership had expired, which he chose to ignore. After being notified five times, Commissioner Lorbeer still insisted that he should be allowed to vote on the bylaws.
Parking Commission Chairman KURT SCHNEITER’S brother John Schneiter also untruthfully insisted he was a BSRA member as he did during the September 11, 2008 BSRA election, claiming that he lived in Belmont Shore at 229 Covina. I encourage everyone to walk by the vacant house at 229 Covina that is owned by Kurt Schneiter. John Schneiter was allowed to vote in the September 11, 2008 election using a lease signed the previous day by his brother Commissioner Kurt Schneiter indicating that he was now living at 229 Covina. When I emailed John Schneiter asking for proof he lived at 229 Covina Avenue, such as a copy of a utility bill or tax assessment, he refused to respond to me. When I phoned him, John Schneiter told me to never call him again and hung up on me. Hence, he was removed from the BSRA member roster only to show up again at yesterday’s members-only meeting to vote on bylaw changes.
I believed Fabius's promise, that Panama Joes is making an effort to greatly improve the food (they have!), service, and their relationship with LB residents. (It should be noted that I have not visited PJs after 10 pm on a Friday night and do not live in Belmont Shore.) Anyone who has an issue with how this place is now run should communicate with PJ's management. Take a look at their program to improve the situation:
Here is a link (then click on Project Shush link) to their "Project Shush!, No Shouting, No Screaming, No Public Urnination, No Littering" program.
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8jzg7/kerriealey/
fyi, prior to all this money-greed business, gene has had a life-long (native son) reputation of being a great guy.
What's up with the infatuation about Mr Ruehle's exposed plumbing? Some wonder...?
Are you still in Junior High School , suffering from arrested development, or profoundly immature? OK, Ruehle's a tool...a pretty effective one. Why? Because he is doing his best to advocate for a lot of concerned citizens who seek redress of a range of legitimate grievances.
So how does your First Amendment analysis rescind the well accepted body of law all accross this Nation which supports Reasonable Time Place and Manner restrictions upon a range of Speech, including a range of socially unacceptable Nuisance behaviors?
This town has a range of Noise Ordinances and Nuisance restrictions which are on the books, and need to be enforced here, and thousands of residents have paramount, vested property rights?
Any resident has standing to Sue, or seek the application of the existing codes? Any Resident can move to the Nuisance and Sue as well? Your specious time line about who bought when, who got licensed when, or where , and this priority of rights analysis, is largely irrelevant if you study the cases?
Every resident has the right to a peaceful nights sleep, protection from a range of continuing range of Civil, and Criminal wrongs? These are vested, not conditional rights?
The Nuisance Bars have Conditional Use Permits, and a range of State and Local Restrictions. Clearly a range of their Conditions have been breached, and a range of past, present and prospective Damages seem actionable. There has been a pattern of benign neglect as well.
Furthermore, this Municipality may have been Negligent in the Permitting and oversight of these questionably 'favored' entities ? This Negligence liabilty may well extend to the sitting Councilman too.
It is as if some of the proprietors image some kind of Prescriptive Easement , or acquired right through open and notorious hostile conduct putatively obtained by reoeatedly violating the law, however, such rights against the adjacent residents have absolutely no precedent.
A Crime is a Crime, a Tort is a Tort, A Violation of a Statute proves Duty, and Breach, ''Intent' is basically irrelevant, so why don't you refrain from intellectually bankrupt name calling, and propose any resolution other than ''sit down, shut up, and take it''. Why don't you collectively make an effort to mitigate the Damages here?
Oh right, it might affect your Net Receipts and the greedily clutched to pecuniary interest of three or four wreckless, but 'connected', individuals.
This '' We are bad neighbors who are entitled to break the law and diminish our neighbors property values and quality of life'' posture is a non starter, as is the Councilman's latest attempt at yet another, invitation only, cull the evidence, shape the outcome, biased, hear no evil, see no evil 'Star Chamber'. More 'bricks' in yet another naive 'Wall' erected between Residents, and Business. Yet another potential misstep.
It can be an absolute pleasure to be adverse to ''The gang that couldn't shoot straight', at times, or the ''Neighborhoods be damned'' crowd.
The original Master Plan, design, setbacks, and permitting was engineered and planned around 6 Alcohol Licenses. That was reasonable . 54 alcohol sources, and growing, is not.
You had better find a better Defense than the First Amendment this time. But please, continue to make yourselves a bigger, and bigger ...targets.
How will you guys 'spin' the fact that Mr Rotundo stated on the front page of the Press Telegram that the person who was intoxicated, was not in his Bar, however Evidence is emerging that the Defendant who had this outburst, failed to comply and was shot, was apparently drinking, and quite ossibly over served in his bar before this event?
Try to shut his Attorneys up and see how far that gets us?
Kudos to LBPD for their increased Patrols, however, the Bars had a good thing going, and a license to print money. They over stepped one too many times, poured too much booze for far too long, became the bain of their area, and now need to be significantly reigned in and sanctioned, most agree.
Trying to kill the BSRA message, and their messengers, is a fool's errand, and further provocation.
Q: Did you get the DUI before or after you became president of the BSRA?
A: My one DUI court date was June 28, 2007. This occurred 2+ months before I was elected as BSRA president on September 13, 2007.
Q: Why is Second Street of citywide news interest?
A: Because there was a 2nd street shooting less than 12 hours after the District Weekly newspaper published an article about the increasing frustration of Belmont Shore residents whose neighborhoods are flooded with troublemaking bar patrons and their posting of Youtube videos of late night brawls and other public disturbances to both curb bad bar patron behaviors and also attract the attention of a previously non-responsive Long Beach government.
Q: What should people who live within a block of a major retail, dining and entertainment strip expect?
A: As taxpayers, residents who live within a block of 2nd street have the right to expect the same quality of life expected by anyone who lives in Long Beach, no matter where they live. This expectation includes quiet enjoyment of their property without exposure to fights, shooting and public disturbances. There should not be a double standard that ignores codes, city ordinances and instead favors an “entertainment strip” over the rights of nearby taxpayer residents. Everyone, businesses and residents alike, should abide by the same codes and the city should enforce those code equitably.
Furthermore, when a resident purchases their home, it should be considered their family’s personally owned business, no different than a bar on 2nd street. A significant amount of a family’s money is invested in their homes with the expectation for their property to appreciate in value. Nobody purchases a home with the expectation it will depreciate in value. Uncontrolled bar patrons should not be allowed to depreciate a family’s property value they plan to pass on to their heirs.
Moreover, the City has a vested interest in maximizing property values and the resulting property taxes they collect accordingly. There are approximately 4700 residences in the Belmont Shore area represented by the BSRA. That represents a total property value of approximately $4.0 billion with $20 -$40 million in property taxes collected annually, from which Long Beach gets $5 - $10 million per year. It makes economic sense for the city to do all it feasibly can to increase property values and the resulting property taxes that are generated to support the services expected by all taxpayers. Violence, shootings and public disturbances is a reputation that does not improve property values.
Q: How is the situation different today than it was even 10 years ago, when drinking was more accepted?
A: I agree that drinking may have been more accepted 10 years ago and even more so 22 years ago when I purchased my first house in Belmont Shore. While alcohol certainly is a contributing cause to public disturbance problems, in my opinion, the difference today is caused by a combination of bars marketing Belmont Shore as a party area and inadequate police enforcement, resulting in a late night wild, wild west atmosphere.
The bar clientele being attracted from outside the area by the late night happy hour and 2 for 1 drink specials is different than seen 10 years ago. Police Officer Klein reported to the December Business Association meeting that most of the late night public disturbance problems are being caused by people who do not live in Belmont Shore. Former Councilman Colonna echoed Officer Klein’s statement during his speech to the February Business Association meeting when he announced a $2,000 reward he was offering after his Shore business property was vandalized. Specifically, Mr. Colonna told the Business Association that the night time customer on 2nd street had changed over the past couple of years to become much younger.
In addition, there is now only one police officer assigned to all of Beat 10 at bar closing time. Beat 10 stretches from Seal Beach, through Marina Pacifica and past Belmont Shore. There is no way one police officer can successfully monitor 20+ bars pushing their over served patrons out the doors at 2:00 am and into residential areas. This is obvious to residents who have numerous times asked for more help from the police.
Q: What is the residents' association's role in this saga?
A: The Belmont Shore Residents Association’s (BSRA) role is to represent the residential community’s quality of life issues and concerns. The BSRA’s preferred route to addressing the bar patron public disturbance problems is to seek assistance from the city’s police department and the District 3 Councilmember’s office. Failing to receive this assistance, the BSRA is left with no choice but to draw attention to this unacceptable situation in hopes City Hall will reconsider and address late night public disturbance problems that threaten residents’ quality of life.
Q: What answers do you have?
A: There are 260+ businesses in Belmont Shore. 54 of those businesses have alcohol licenses. 5 of those businesses (less than 2%) serve alcohol after midnight when 90% of the public disturbances occur. It is appalling that I should have to suggest any of the following ideas to improve an unacceptable situation for the community caused by a mere 5 businesses.
• Create an ordinance eliminating alcohol sales in Belmont Shore after midnight.
• Request the ABC impose alcohol license conditions limiting alcohol sales, outside security and drink specials.
• Create a permit parking zone to prevent bar patrons from parking in the residential areas.
• Increase permanent Belmont Shore police staffing. Funding to be provided by increased business license fees for businesses serving alcohol after midnight, utilizing Parking Commission parking meter revenue and/or utilizing tax assessments provided by the city to the Business Association.
• Conduct regular sobriety check points and provide DUI teams in Belmont Shore.
• Revise the Parking Commission ordinance to increase resident representation so parking meter money is equally spent on resident issues.
When evaluating Mr. Saltzgaver and the Grunnion it should be noted that a large percentage of their newspaper revenue is gotten by 2nd street business ads. After TDW published a negative article about the parking commission and BSBA members, I have been told that the President of the BSBA and members ordered other local businesses to stop advertising in TDW.
Is the Gazettes newspaper a member of the Belmont Shore Business Association (BSBA)? The Gazettes and Press Telegram are owned by the same company Media News. The Press Telegram printed a front page article on the Mike Ruehle President of the Belmont Shore Residents Association 2 year old DUI. Does anyone expect the Gazette to complain about its sister publication the Press Telegram reporting of “news”?
The BSBA’s Mission Statement: “The purpose of the Belmont Shore Business Association is to form a common bond among business owners located in and around the Belmont Shore area whose goals are to promote, protect, and maintain prosperity for the Belmont Shore Community. This association is for its members and the immediate community, providing a united front to express opinions, protects tranquility and promote a better understanding among merchants, institutions, professionals, as well as residents.”
Many local businesses and residents are negatively affected by crimes, noise, fighting, public peeing/vomiting, noise caused by the bar culture which the president of the BSBA (& owner of Legends and the AI) has encouraged and profited from. Many merchants close their businesses during the “family” Xmas parade and lose critical holiday sales because of the drunken behavior of many of the 2nd street bar customers. The many special events that increase bar/food sales drive away retail and service customers because attendees of these large events use all of the metered parking spots . 2nd street events also severely affect residential parking. The BSBA has refused to implement employee or visitor shuttles during special event. I have also been told that the businesses who have spoken up about the operation of BSBA have been ostracized by the BSBA.
In his article I hope that Mr. Saltzgaver assesses the BSBA’s performance to their mission statement to “form a common bond among businesses”, “protect and maintain prosperity for the Belmont Shore Community”, “protect tranquility” or “promoted a better understanding” among merchants and residents.
http://www.belmontshore.org/ states that its bylaws will be "COMING SOON".
Why is one person Gene Rontondo allowed to run the BSBA a "nonprofit" organization, which is contracted to administer the city's business improvement area's funds for over 11 years? How can this be a healty democratic community organization?
I have more respect for Belmont Shore Resident's Association which has board term limits , encourages new ideas, surveys its members with polls, has no monetary conflict of interest, and tries to improve the safety quality of life for its members, protect property rights, and make Belmont Shore better for everyone involved.
You may also notice the business association website does not post their meeting minutes for the public to recount what they are doing with their $324,000 budget and the money they receive from the City of Long Beach.
Only 15 of the 260+ business owners voted in the last Business Association election on October 28, 2009. The 15 business owners who voted included the incumbent 2008 board members who voted themselves back in for another year.
That was the same October Business Association meeting where Parking Commission Chairman Kurt Schneiter reported Belmont Shore generated a record $974,000 in sales tax in the previous year. I wonder how that compared to the millions of dollars of property tax revenue that was lost by the depreciation of property values from bar patron public disturbances?
How much devaluation do you think the shooting cost? How many people looking for homes last week decided to not look in Belmont Shore after reading about the problems our city leaders have previously ignored?
Why does the city hands over the Business Improvement Area (BIA) money to an organization that runs it’s non-profit in an legal manner?
The County District Attorney and IRS should take a close look at their books and meeting minutes. If I remember right all non-profit accounting books, bylaws and minutes are required to be made available to the public when asked.
California case law indicates that, for example, if a city creates a special local assessment district, collects assessments from local property owners, and provides by ordinance that the programs paid for with those funds will be governed by a non-profit association, the non-profit corporation set up to govern those programs will be subject to the Brown Act. (See Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862 (2001)).
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Mais
To: rekim@earthlink.net
Cc: Karen_McCormick@longbeach.gov
Sent: 3/26/2009 4:48:38 PM
Subject: Re: Public Meeting Question
Mr. Ruehle
The Brown Act only applies to "legislative bodies" as that term is defined in the state Government Code. I have provided you with a copy of that definition below. The BSBA does not meet the definition of a "legislative body", and therefore is not subject to the Brown Act. In other words, there is no legal requirement that the BSBA's meetings be open to the public. I would again suggest that you determine if there is anything in the group's bylaws that provide for open meetings. If you would like any further information, just let me know.
Cal Gov Code § 54952 (2008) § 54952. "Legislative body"
As used in this chapter, "legislative body" means:
(a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal statute.
(b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decision making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body. However, advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.
(c)
(1) A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:
(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.
(B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency.
(2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), no board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that receives funds from a local agency and, as of February 9, 1996, has a member of the legislative body of the local agency as a full voting member of the governing body of that private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity shall be relieved from the public meeting requirements of this chapter by virtue of a change in status of the full voting member to a nonvoting member.
(d) The lessee of any hospital the whole or part of which is first leased pursuant to subdivision (p) of Section 32121 of the Health and Safety Code after January 1, 1994, where the lessee exercises any material authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that legislative body whether the lessee is organized and operated by the local agency or by a delegated authority.
"The Belmont Shore Business Improvement District is funded by a PBIA assessment collected through the City’s
business license billing. The Belmont Shore Business Association, under contract to the
City of Long Beach, manages the district."
Since the PBIA assessment is collected throught the City's buisness liscense billing (use of public funds, staff,equipment etc. etc.), the BSBA which is contracted to manage the BIA is therefore required to comply with the Brown Act and cannot ban Mike Ruehle.
What happened in See Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862 (2001))is that a property owner who was assessed under a PBID was barred from attending the Hollywood Business Assocation meetings. They did not post meeting notices, minutes, or hold public meetings.
(PBIA are assessments by business owners, PBID are assessment by property owners)
In Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement Dist., the court granted the appeal for Epstein saying that the Brown Act applied.
Given the BSBA mission statement
"The purpose of the Belmont Shore Business Association is to form a common bond among business owners located in and around the Belmont Shore area whose goals are to promote, protect, and maintain prosperity for the Belmont Shore Community. This association is for its members and the immediate community, providing a united front to express opinions, protect tranquility and promote a better understanding among merchants, institutions, professionals, as well as residents."
it does not seem to me that they are following their own bylaws by denying the President of the BSRA attendance at their meeting. Was there a board vote to ban you?
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rotondo
To: BSRA Board
Cc: Jimmy Loizides; Joy Starr; Mike Sheldrake; Lisa Ramelow; dmorgancpa@aol.com; MBE Center mbe1932; foodlover43@earthlink.net; Gary Roth; joseph.voutiritsa@fmb.com; ctulago@yahoo.com; Gary DeLong
Sent: 3/24/2009 5:23:43 PM
Subject: BSBA Meetings
Dear BSRA Board Members:
The BSBA Board would like the BSRA to be part of our general meetings if you so choose.
However, we will no longer allow Mr. Ruehle to attend, and would rather have another member(s) represent the BSRA’s interest.
We feel Mr. Ruehle fails to accurately report to your members, the public and media what is discussed or otherwise conveyed at, but not limited to, our meetings.
We further feel it is in the best interest of the BSBA and the community, and hope that you can encourage a representative that will accurately relay our meeting agenda and information without a personal slanted viewpoint.
Understand, you are not limited to one individual. If a group (larger than 4) would like to attend, please contact myself or Brooke so we can ensure adequate seating.
Again, we encourage your participation and input.
We regret having to make this decision; but the BSBA can no longer offer a venue for Mr. Ruehle to gather information, distort, and distribute it under the BSRA umbrella or any other option he feels warranted.
Thank you for your understanding.
Gene Rotondo
BSBA President
310-779-2700
However banning people for critical speech is dlearly a state violaton,
the Brown Act specifically provides that "[t]he legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body." Cal. Govt. Code Section 54954.3(c).
To read about the Brown Act go to http://www.cfac.org/content/index.php/cfac-meet...
Multiple stroll and savor events, Car shows, Christmas parades, chocolate festivals, chili cook-offs, etc. are all designed to attract new customers for the bars and restaurants and make it difficult or near impossible for regular customers of retail and service stores to shop or get their hair cut.
The problem lies with most businesses, especially the retail and service businesses, not having a voice free of retaliation from their landlords. Parking Commission Chairman Schneiter and Parking Commission Vice Chairman Lorbeer own a significant number of the commercial properties on 2nd street, including several of the problem bars they use parking meter revenue to promote. Commissioner Lorbeer is Business Association President Rotondo’s landlord. Commissioner Lorbeer’s nephew is married to Business Association President Rotondo’s daughter. The web is disturbing. Retail and service business owners have little choice but to keep their mouths shut while the Business Association and Parking Commission tear our community apart.
1. How many businesses exist within the geographic boundaries of the Belmont Shore Business Improvement District and of those, how many are members of the BSBA and,
2. What is the adult resident population of Belmont Shore and, of those adults, how many are members of the BSRA
Any assistance or referral anyone might offer in this area would be most helpful. Thanks!
I did receive a partial answer, by email, from one reader, as to the number of businesses in the BSBID as well as the number of residents in the Shore (roughly), thanks Mr. Jarrett!
Nothing, yet, on membership numbers of either the BSRA or the BSBA. Anyone happen to have those?
I believe you should have (and stiil should, if possible) asked Harry why your "old record" is any more or less newsworthy than the "old records" of our currently sitting councilpersons. Trust me, there is "dirt" to be found there. Ordinarily, I think old records are not very relevant, but if they are "good enough for you", then they should be "good enough for them". Maybe you should ask if Harry himself has any kind of old record. Maybe you could ask him to investigate what happened at Edison toward the end of Foster's tenure there and the conditions of his departure. I don't think he would dare.
Gene Rotundo openly admits to advance notice and knowledge of upcoming ABC stings in the Shore. Likely hasn't had one of those "advance notices" lately. . .
Without Mike's sacrificial exposing of the problems, dewrong, rotundo, greet, shneiter, spoiled lorbeer, archbold, canalis, gordon et al would be holding their collective breath after each violent/deadly/homicidal incident waiting for it to be forgotten.
He takes a kickin' and keeps on tickin'!
Thank you Mike!
Doesn't it seem strange to you that until this past Friday night many were taking City government and the Police Department to task for failing to effectively deal with these challenges and alleging that this failure of response was, at least in part, due to some sort of personal grudge against Mr. Ruehle and yet now, once a level of assistance they better approve of has arrived (and, strangely, despite these conspiratorial allegations), many of these same people are now crediting Mr. Ruehle for having accomplished it?
Mr. Ruehle may very well have had a part in enhancing community awareness of this public safety challenge in his neighborhood and, if so, he has my sincere appreciation. But to infer that he was the primary, or even a particularly significant, force in getting this recent police response accomplished seems, to me, sadly delusional.
You've seen fit to name me in your comment. Can you explain what has led you to believe that I would ever hold my breath after any criminal incident and wait for it to be forgotten? Do you know me, Mr. wrong? Do you have personal knowledge of the quality of my work for the City of Long Beach and the character of my service in furtherance of public safety in this city for over 20 years now?
Or, as seems fairly typical of a good many of the comments you direct toward me, do you simply desire to insult those who dare to disagree with you and to demean and denigrate that which you have little knowledge of and even less understanding?
"Mr. wrong: Is it possible that "the improvements" may not have happened *because* of Mr. Ruehle but, rather, *in spite* of him"?
Absolutely NOT!
Would the city attorney have advised the city council to revisit the phony land deal with dean if Tom Marchese hadn't exposed the "deal" with his FOIA exposure of the shameful emails?
Absolutely NOT!
John_Greet 10 hours ago:
"But to infer that he was the primary, or even a particularly significant, force in getting this recent police response accomplished seems, to me, sadly delusional".
I gather you feel we should thank you for emailing the chief and the commander about the situation, and providing them with a comprehensive reactive plan of action?
What's next, that Tracy Kleekamp-Wilson had nothing to do with exposing joe prevratils long beach fleecing scam with his buds downtown?
greet no one gives a damn about your pseudointellectual flim flam.
TDW is a free speech forum. According to Greet anyone who disagrees with him is somehow "intellectually dishonest", "insulting those who dare to disagree with you and tend to demean and denigrate that which you have littlel knowledge of and even less understanding" and or
"inaccurate".
Even more funny is that this guy is yelling at people named "ResidentsFirst", "HIGHHAT", SunshineLB, wrongbeachJohn and THE TOAD. He has no idea who we are, what we know, whether we are just taking positions to encourage interesting discussion or be ironic, and Greet in no position to be able to evaluate our understanding of anything.
Guy reminds me of a tired border collie trying to herd a bunch of wild horses who really know what freedom of speech and Democracy means.
Sorry... just trying out a little mirroring, but is still annoying no matter who says his BS, even me.
The saddest fact is that those who are employed in the capacities and with the resources to properly investigate civic corruption (the county DA, the state AG and the FBI) have no interest whatsoever in looking at Long Beach. And that's not Greet's fault or your fault or Ruehle's fault or my fault or......
God bless Mike Rehule!!!!!!
(Answer to Greet's comment: "Mr. High: I do not recall ever having accused Mr. Ruehle of lying or being a bully. Could you please site any single example of my having done so?" John Greet)
My dictionary defines dishonest as "Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive." So I guess you are the lier.
The problem with your dishonest and insincere babble is that it is soo hard to keep track of what bullshit you are slinging. Greets a Lier Lier Pants On Fire.
GOOD GREIF you're insufferable! But you are highly entertaining nonetheless. KEEP IT UP!! I'm laughing my ass over here in the Shore!!
If I felt that way about Mr. Ruehle I assure you I would have used those terms. But I do not feel that way about him, so I did not.
Not that it will matter but I hope that clears it up for you!
You're hilarious, buddy!
Wow.....uugh....wow
Does that first paragraph of yours rise to the level of a Civil Service complaint against you? Those are some pretty harsh words for a City Employee aren't they?
Wow, we have seen people get re-assigned for lesser such words?
Please, you are taking some of this way too seriously and giving your fellow Officer's a bit of a black eye here.
Please, don't make us talk to Chief Batts about this? He has hugged a few of us you know? What a fine man.
As a Gentleman, an apology might be in order here Sir. You are a Public Servant Sir and there are terms within your Employment Contract. Citizen Advocates are bound by no such covenants.
Was it this one: “Mr. wrong: Is it possible that "the improvements" may not have happened *because* of Mr. Ruehle but, rather, *in spite* of him? Is it conceivable that despite Mr. Ruehle's rude, hostile, insulting, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and confrontational nature; the recent and unfortunate circumstances on 2nd Street caused those who *could* do something about it to do so?”
If so, is it your assertion that, because I happen to be a sworn civil service public safety employee that I somehow waived my Constitutional right to develop my own opinions and express myself as I so choose when I’m on my own time, in my own home and on my own computer?
Would I express myself in the same manner when on duty and representing my Chief, whom I admire greatly; and my Department, which I am deeply devoted to, and my City, which I love and whence I was born? Certainly not. Any more than how I may or may not feel about Mr. Ruehle has any bearing whatsoever on the manner in which I serve this City and all of the fine residents in it when I am being compensated to do so.
But, Residents, I am fully entitled to my own opinions and to express them as I choose; no less than anyone else. When I express my opinions, here, I am doing so as a *private citizen*, not as a City Employee. I have made this perfectly clear on many occasions. Moreover I stand by my personal opinions and assessments of Mr. Ruehle just as he and his supporters here no doubt stand by there’s of me. My personal opinions and statements, here, should not reflect either positively or negatively upon my Department, my Chief or my City any more than Mr. Ruehle’s should reflect one way or another on all engineers. I assume that Mr. Ruehle is speaking for himself. Why am I not granted the same consideration?
In re-reading the paragraph in question there *is* one term I’d like to correct. I should not have said that Mr. Ruehle’s “nature” was “rude, hostile, insulting, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and confrontational”. I really don’t know him well enough to know his “nature”. A better term would have been his “manner” for it his “manner”, both with me and with others, which I feel is “rude, hostile, insulting, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and confrontational”. So, Resident, I abjectly and most profoundly apologize, to you and all other readers, for misemploying the term “nature” when what I meant to communicate was the term “manner”.
Wow. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!!
The Greet show continues!! The most hilarious on line show in Long Beach!
Keep it up, Johnny boy!!!!
Not everyone in city hall is a Greet. Fortunately, there are many intelligent, humble, hardworking responsible city employees who greatly serve our city with dignity when are they are allowed to do the right thing. I hope these city workers are having a good laugh over this thread. To those in city hall who are suffering with the current leadership in city hall- Hang in there change is coming to Long Beach.
I must say your presentation before the Council was most effective. Your frustrations were clearly stated, your facts easy to understand and your passionate requests for assistance from the full Council most moving. I fully sympathize with the challenges you and some other Shore residents are experiencing and I can assure you I am doing everything I can, as a fellow 3rd District resident, to assist you with these challenges.
I also have to say that I feel it is most unfortunate that you have adopted the confrontational, accusatory, disingenuous and insulting manner that you have, not only with me, but with Mr. DeLong, the Mayor and others as well. Your cause is just and your concerns have great merit but I feel strongly that the methods you are employing and the manner in which you choose to communicate with me and others are *not* serving either your cause or your concerns very well at all.
This comments section, here, indicates that 2 people liked your comments and I'm certain that many others did as well. That's great! It's very nice to be liked. But I think it's more important to be factual, to be truthful and to quote what people say accurately and in context whenever that is possible, as it is in this case.
I wonder if those who liked your comments were either present at Council or viewed the video segment as I have done. If they did I wonder if it bothers them at all that in your comments, here, you have misrepresented what Mr. DeLong actually said as well as the number of officers currently assigned to 2nd Street at 2am.
You’re a very popular fellow, here, Mr. Ruehle. Readers seem to like your rude, discourteous and confrontational demeanor. They have every right to like whatever they want. But I hope both they and you have a full appreciation of the price you and they and your neighborhood may be paying for this demeanor. I wonder if you and they have any idea of the damage you are doing your own cause and concerns.
You’re a bright and sincere fellow, Mr. Ruehle, and I think you could accomplish *very great good* in your community if you could but simply manage to adjust your approach and demeanor to one more cooperative and less confrontational, more conciliatory and less accusatory, more intellectually honest and less disingenuous, and more courteous and less insulting.
City Hall’s next step was to yell, threaten and retaliate in attempt to intimidate the BSRA and myself. The BSRA Board and I were threatened with law suits, told by Councilman DeLong at City Council meetings we were "MALCONTENTS" and retaliated against by City Hall because we dared to insist that our concerns were legitimate.
City Hall’s next step has been to shun us. We are not allowed to attend or participate in public meetings. Resident surveys as ignored. I personally am banned from the Business Association meetings and COUNICLMAN DELONG refuses to allow me to attend his meetings with the public.
I don’t see Mr. Greet going before City Council asking for their help on the issues he blogs about every day, all day. Mr. Greet sits behind a desk at the police department blogging away at taxpayer’s expense while dishing out his seventh grade civics lessons. It’s easy for him to criticize my “approach.” He hasn't walked in my shoes. MAYOR FOSTER and COUNCILMAN DELONG have provided me no other option but to take my aggressive approach. I’ve tried Mr. Greet's nice guy way and it doesn’t work with them. I've got numerous emails that I can post on this site where I have asked to meet with them and other city staffers to discuss resident issues. Each time we were ignored or denied. It's difficult to be nice when I am ignored.
I prefer to not take this approach. However, when left with no other option to enact change, I will do what is necessary. Furthermore, I will not be shut down by Mr. Greet's continued smear campaigns. That only seeks to strengthen my resolve.
Please, attempt to take a step back from your Official Duties as a Policeman, and your subjective view of this matter, and your objective responsiblilty as a writer for LBPost. Also, please try to take a step back from what several may surmise what at times may appear to be the subtle weaving of a 'Contempt of Cop' attitude into your writings.
You might have to retire for a few years to gain this perspective, but you need to acknowledge that many of us bring bias into our thoughts by virtue of our position, predisposition or pecuniary interest. Think of this entire matter as a large, multi issue Civil Suit, and ask yourself who's Witness list you would be on, and who's witness list you would be most certainly be excluded from.
Under what circumstances would you be called as a ''good' Character witness for Mr Ruehle in an action against the City, or the Police ? Especially as currently employed?
Clearly, many of us have to function within the constraining realm of Court Room, or City Staff decorum. Many chose to be stuck within these confines, however Mr Ruehle has a broader latitude. Clearly the first rule of City Council /Staff debate is to ''Never insult Staff'. However, and conversely, do you have any idea how many times Residents, or their Representative's are called 'Idiots' inside City Hall? Or falsely alleged to be lying? Deluded? Naive? A Misanthrope? A 'CAVE" person ? A Critic? A kook ? Wholly obstreperous?
Under what circumstances is this fair?
These proper decorum. let's play nice rules do not necessarily apply here for good reason. First, nobody is getting paid to kiss somebody's behind, or exhaust port. This is a wide open forum where many speak there mind, or 'let their hair down', talk candidly, and flesh out salient issues. The bounds of Free Speech, and Free and Fair Debate are far more liberally defined, more organic and real. Many consider this a good thing.
Towns like this are better for having a forum where less fettered Civil Liberties abound. Where speech is restrained, liberty dies, and Democracy bears the scar.
Since you appear to be giving advice, may we suggest some friendly advice to you, gleaned from many. You might be also become more effective to endeavor to refrain from, or appear to be assuming the self appointed, de facto, 'Moderator' role here either. It can appear slightly ego centric from time to time, or void of intellectual honesty and objectivity.
Thanks for your advice, but Mr Ruehle is not in custody, and you are not necessarily at liberty to control his conduct, words, or thoughts. Your advice , is simply, your advice. Mr Ruehle's approach is his approach, his record, and advocacy his own. Both have you have earned your own reputations. Mr Ruehle has prevailed during 2 at large elections and has many supporters.
The ''Electorate'' has spoken, so let's look to a larger issue, why has the Councilman spent 3 years erecting a Berlin Wall between the BSRA and the BSBA , and pitched acrimony between many other Residents and Staff, between Business and Residents, time after time, or between certain gilded 'Buddies' and the Courts and thousands of people, over and over as if common sense is nowhere in the building? Year after year?
An important group of Objective Civic Leaders recently observed that the Councilman and certain City Staff have ineptly managed to arrange a 'Mexican Standoff' between the BSRA, and the BSBA for the first time in the history of these two organizations ? This is unheard of. The BSRA has vested rights. The City has well defined Duties to them. The onus is on the Councilman, and Staff to respond to these Taxpayers.
There collective Property Rights, and Personal Rights, are manifestly paramount to those of a few Nuisance Businesses. Running from the problem has exacerbated the dilemma. There is zero precedent of such a disconnect, or bias towards certain 'Business Buddies',during the tenure of all prior Councilpersons.
The Councilman has a Duty to this organization, and gets paid to smooth out such situations, not fuel the acrimony, foster further division, and promote a Prior Restraint upon lawful Free Speech?
Ask his predecessors how many times they had to go stand in the crucible, endure the raining of pitchforks, or get publically boiled in oil during a misstep? Doing so is being accountable, it is oure Democracy, it is courageous, it is right.
Now to a Macro issue at a higher level. Many are hopeful that the Mayor can reach out here, rise above all of this, and broker some resolution, or set the stage for some means of Detente. If the Chinese Communists could sit down with the USA, during the height of the Vietnam war, why can't our Councilman find time for the BSRA?
This kind of Peace Negotiation, is exactly the kind of example that many hope that the Mayor would like on his record. He needs to have a serious talk with Mr DeLong the next time that they play golf, because the latter is making him look bad. Mr DeLong is being perceived as a growing Political Liability for Mr Foster and several are aware of Partisan concerns here which may affect future elections.
And it would be terribly magnanimous, for Mr Ruehle, and Mr Foster, to set all past differences aside, slip out of town somewhere quietly, and have a few beers together and talk some this out privately. Let Mr Ruehle call a cab afterwards. They can agree to what is on, and what is off, the record. They can begin with comparing their Blue Collar roots, and the hours of sweat, in the trades, that others read about in a book.
We are all works in progress. Both individuals have a lot of good inside and are potentially much much bigger than all of this?
Mr Greet, it is encouraging to see you focusing upon co-operation, and improved Police Patrols, productivity enhancements, better bar regulation, increased oversight, Citizen Patrols, and more effective application of the Rule of Law. Kudos to the Men and Women of the LBPD, BATF, and ABC who are trying to help the Residents too.
Shalom
Why aren't there more comments about Ruele and his danger to our society after today's newspaper article?
I don't know of any danger DeLong has ever presented against us directly? DeLong is just sane enough to know that those on these internet blogs are NOT the majority of the voting public.
Let's just let people that are not a menace to society post their feelings on how we should be protected.
Still a good old boy network, even though Sheriff Baca recently told them to knock off the drinking and driving, in particular while carrying a service weapon, and discontinue the "courtesy". The CHP, however, doesn't observe "courtesy", so side streets preferred if possible.
"d?"=division
maybe?
Mike was willing to risk everything to help his community become a safer place. What have you done but malign the man? Seriously, how can anyone in their right mind think that a crowded bar scene can exist with no policing?
Bringing up Mike's DUI at this time made Mike appear to be right about the Rotundo-Schneiter-DeLong conspiracy against him, and makes those conspirators look pretty bad if you ask me.
Those he calls "out on the table" persist with an endless litany of bad behavior. And unlike you, he is able to provide the evidence to substantiate his claims.
Additionally, the 500k loan to rotondo and his investor group MUST be recast and repaid in full at market rate interest.
Under the current "okey-doke" system it would make sense to hand over the city business license fees to randy "hypocrite" gordon for his unilateral utilization.
It is crumbs anyway. Gotta give something back to the tax base. If you put it into the general fund it will just be more east side subsidizing services for the west side. i say leave the parking meter money alone and keep it in the shore.
Comparing the BSRA to a theocracy show how little Mr. Moriarity knows about democracy. Hats off to the Belmont Shore Residents Association for conducting themselves and this election in a ethical and democratic manner.
Thanks LBReport for including the audio.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/jun09/bsrabys2.htm
Mr. Moriarty is also one of the owners of Legends and Acapulco Inn, two of the problem bars on 2nd street.
During the beginning of yesterday's General Membership meeting to vote on bylaw changes, TIM MORIARTY interruped the meeting and refused to stand down to allow the bylaw voting to proceed. At which point, I informed the audience that I was calling the police for assistance to restore order to the BSRA meeting. Mr. Moriarty's resonse was "PLEASE CALL THE POLICE, I KNOW ALL OF THEM." When the police arrived, Mr. Moriarty smiled and waved to the police officers who return Mr. Moriarty's wave. Based upon the relationship bar owners have with the police, it is understandable why residents complaints about Legends and the other problem bars were ignored by the police for the 16-months prior to the officer involved shooting.
I swung through the alleys to see if any of the bars had security in the parking lots behind the bars. The only bar that had security in the parking lot was Panama Joes. His name was David. Very clean cut. Nice personality. I complimented him on doing a fine job of helping to keep things quiet in our neighborhood.
I found it interesting that a Los Angeles County Sherriff’s car was doing laps in Belmont Shore. Saw him drive to one end of 2nd street and do a U-turn and then come back again a little later. I wonder if the city has asked for help from LA County.
All in all, the police are doing a fine job of controlling outrageous bar patron behavior. It is a world of difference compared to a couple of months ago. Thank you police officers for the fine work you are doing. Please don’t dessert the shore.
1) Section Violated: 24200(a)
(a) When the continuance of a license would be contrary to public
welfare or morals.
2) Section Violated: 23804
23804. A violation of a condition placed upon a license pursuant to
this article shall constitute the exercising of a privilege or the
performing of an act for which a license is required without the
authority thereof and shall be grounds for the suspension or
revocation of such license.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/bpc_table_of_co...
Voting on the proposed bylaw changes is scheduled for Saturday. None of this would be necessary if not for the outrageous conduct of Gene Rotondo and the Business Association’s in its attempts to take over the BSRA. Mr. Rotondo is not satisfied with Councilman DeLong’s undivided support and the Business Association control of the Parking Commission. He must have it all.
Interesting timing here( re the Hellflower recalls). Long Beach has had some recall meetings too. Some focused on one Gary DeLong. The residents asked;
How has Gary DeLong helped his District, and his town address the huge Pension spikes ? Or the Pension Potholes? Or the crumbling infrastructure?
He did propose many unpopular projects ? The Wetlands Home Depot ? Ignoring 5,731 Petitions? Percipitating litigation, and a losing, costly battle?
Trying to convert the Tot Lot to a parking lot for friends? Developing the Pumpkin patch Wetlands is now under review?
He did help accomplish a private study to not modify any of the Breakwater ?
Now there is the 12 story Mega Hotel at 2nd and PCH planned for a politically close friend?
And a huge Wetlands Buddy Bailout for another wealthy friend, to soak the City, and the State for 10s of Millions? A huge cover up of the huge Soil Contamination Liability there ? Sponsoring the semi gift, or huge discounts upon the selective sale of City Assets to a close friend, rather than sale to the highest bidder on the open market? Better yet, don't sell our Municipal land? Let the State buy the Wetlands directly?
Recall his quiet new WADIP zoning plan, and secret Star Chamber, to develop Wetlands, and add 7 stories all along PCH, and Marina Drive? Again, to make huge money for special cronies.
A hands off policy that allowed Belmont Shore Bars to turn into a continuing Nuisance for so many residents? An attempted 'Hostile Takeover' of the Belmont Shores Residents Association which failed spectacularly?
Directing much of the repaving budget into his own neighborhood? Or to other politically connected friends? Ignoring the paving needs of area's where perceived political enemies are? For example? Not one square foot of asphalt for the worst street in town? Deadly Loynes Drive?
Sponsorship of this gang of 5, or 6 Council mentality where Democrats become Republicans for the night to keep certain old guard friends happy, and solvent? Sponsoring this Murchinson stranglehold on certain, monied votes?
Playing on Facebook rather than working at his elected task while at Council? Recall the Mayor recently asking him to turn off his ''TV.''..while trying to merely assemble a quorum to conduct business?
The worst attendance record in Council History? Recall that the Mayor had to joke...'' Oh...Mr DeLong...you're here....nice to see you'' in 2007, to get him to attend a little bit more. (both events are on tape)
Meeting with the owners, and facilitating the Loynes Drive Wetlands Destruction? (email and notes in evidence) And now, assenting , or strategically keeping quiet with an eye towards it's development?
Helping organize a move to oust certain Councilpersons? Stay tuned on this one.
Complete disregard towards, or involvement with, or meaningful involvement with, or staff appointed from, the Gay, Lesbian, Trans-gender Community?
Silence in the face of the growing fiscal emergency this town faces? Sponsoring huge, failed , ideas which have wasted Millions of dollars of Staff, and City resources? Endorsing Measure 'I" ? If he is Right wing, and a fiscal conservative, why hasn't he led the charge to rein in Police, Fire and Civil Service budgets? City Hall waste? Is this purely Politicial?
Ignoring many concerned Homeowners Associations? Adhering strictly, to a Special Interests only mindset?
Now that is some recall ammunition?
We are staring at a huge list of District 3 'missteps' here and this weekends Meeting, was not merely a 'Butt' or two. ( This is a reference to Mr Butts who is doing Bellflower recalls)
A recall can be a very good thing. Stay tuned. Mr DeLong is basically a nice man, he meant well for his business friends, but he is better suited to the Corporate world, than the average, peace loving, quality of life is key resident in his District.
He'll be fine back in the business world, but public service requires a different skill set, and compassion towards all.
Residents First, People first, Taxpayers First, and Neighborhoods First?
Many want a Jan Hall type of rep again. A lifelong resident, born of community concerns, and fair towards all, not mostly the connected.
No personal disrespect intended. Some politicians blossom, others are a bed of thorns, acrimony and disquiet?
A proper plan checker will eliminate windows left and right off of your plans today, when replacing walls.
Also, the seismic calculations must have been omitted. Without a steel frame, and a grade beam, and additional diaphrams, and Earthquake ties, and shear walls, more codes appear to be violated.
Both of these Engineering pieces, could kill this design, or add huge cost.
We see no green building compliance, or LEADS qualification here?
Let's see all of the calculations, and we'll send them to our Engineers.
This looks like another hack job , look the other way, illegal variance deal.
Call City Engineer Mark Kristoffels tomorrow and review the plans, permits, seismic, and HVAC upsizing, if any. As them if the calculations are subject to verification. Get a copy, and we'll proceed.
Aesthetically, the look is terribly tacky. Are the going to rotate tires and change your oil during the off hours too?
Do you think Frank Colonna would ever tolerate this ? Drummond? Jan Hall?
Never. Another senseless, special interests first, DeLong misstep.
That structure was not designed to have huge portions of it's structural walls eliminated, nor do we see adequate structural re-inforcement to prevent lateral acceleration, rocking, twisting and torquing during a major seismic event? This may well pose a risk to human health. City's get sued when permitted slip shod construction fails, harms people, or damages property. Where are they re-inforcing the shear walls? Where is the full set of plans calling out all of the existing structure? The original calculations, and the subsequent values. Let's guess, the codes were suspended again for a 'buddy'.
On the Legend's deal, is it true that the Loan payments, back to Long Beach Taxpayers, were suspended without our Auditor or Finance Experts examining the books, and fully documenting actual, not feigned, economic hardship? To suspend these payments, actual economic hardship needs to be legally demonstrated. People get prosecuted for Fraud in other Jurisdictions for failing to be honest, and transparent under such circumstances. All of these should be made available to the Public. Is this yet another gift of Public Funds?
If actual, demonstrable Hardship exists, then we drift into grounds which support further assurances of the borrowers assets, credit worthiness and ability to pay. If this is not actually a viable business, and if it in fact actually requires a monthly taxpayer subsidy, i.e., we are basically paying much of the rent by forgiving loan repayment, consider calling the note ? Seeking another Lender? If this ends up forcing them to market the property, and attach more resident friendly terms to the transfer of the liquor license?
Few can see any justification to fund this business further, given the residents consensus that the burdens have grown to the point that they outweigh the benefits.
Can you imagine, subsidizing all of this wanton chaos in the area, funding and incenting a Continuing Nuisance which has placed huge expense upon the PD and the community, paying for a problem which has garnered enormous bad press, and significant ill will, all because so and so is a buddy buddy buddy?
Money, looking out for money again, and Politics, at it's greasiest ? Corporate Welfare.
If this guy was such a model citizen, he would be paying off, or significantly paying down his indebtedness, to help a City which has been very, very good to him.
From Council mouths...fly endless farts
And righteous men, assailed with blame
As justice fades, in drunken shame
We people hold the sacred trust
We speak aloud, because we must
We stand and fight, we will not fade
For better lives for most, get made.
Out in the realm, a cry is heard.
We flip some clowns, a well earned bird.
And evermore, we hear the song
Recall DeLong, DeLong is wrong..
C-
Your turn. Excellent work Sunshine
On sat my friend and I wandered by and saw that they had the special daytime (live from Germany!) UFC mixed martial arts fights on in the bar. On over half of the TVs. I asked the bartender and she said they have every fight for free. It was a great time! Great service! Food was still good, but the service was great. I drank my weight's worth of Coke and the bartender didn't bat an eye.
Now compared to Legends, where you have to pay to sit in the private loft to watch UFC fights... no wonder why they're losing customers
Panam Joe's owners own Sharkeez in Santa Barbara, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach. I think they've played the petty local politics game a time or two, especially in beachfront retail areas
Your comments along with others seem to indicate that the new owners of PJs really do "get it". Quite a success story: From the top of the problem list to the top of the "good guys" list!
TUESDAY JUNE 16,2009:
Compare and study the pictures above
the fold with the onces in all the papers
this past week in stories about 2ND ST.
One gets an idea of what De Long et
al ushered in.It is just a matter of time.This is an entirely different element.It is not an infrequent occurrence in a large number of
neighborhoods.
The numbers from those areas are
showing up in increasing numbers in
answer to the siren call given- sounded
by those that are clueless as to what
they so beckon via their operational plan.It is not so much they do not
know.They do not know,they do not
know.
Save this photo for future comparisons.
I conjure you, by that which you profess,
Howe'er you come to know it, answer me:
Though you untie the "hot air" winds and let them "residents"fight
Against the "drunken bars"; though the yesty "pacific" waves 2009
Confound and swallow navigation "DUI" up;
Though bladed "complaints" be lodged and "opinions" blown down;
Though "3rd district "castles "hit with vomit" topple on their warders' "LBPD" heads;
Though "Belmont Shore" palaces and "CSULB" pyramids do slope
Their heads to their foundations; though the treasure 2009
Of nature's germens "sports affliction" tumble all together,
Even till destruction sicken; answer me
To what I ask you.
(Apologies to Shakespeare)
of something that surely must be a cross between and air horn and low
rider boom box.
LETTERS: VOL. 2, ISSUE 53 The District WeeklyWed. April 08
There once was a rich man named DEAN / Who was talked about more than was seen With politicians in hand / Lined up to give him land / A dirty deal painted in GREEN
JANIS Via thedistrictweekly.com
Councilman Gary DeLong / Hearing that siren’s song
Trading wetlands for cash In an action so rash / The 3rd District will now say “SO LONG!”
HIGH HAT Via thedistrictweekly.com
But you are correct...twas Ulysses that popped into
my mind this am
Had not seen High Hat's post.
You are correct it was Ulysess that popped into my mind this am.
Mike R.--I applaud your efforts and tenacity; please keep up the good work. And as Bob Saggett would say: "Keep those cameras rolling!".
commandante renaulds claim that it wasn't the shooting that triggered the new patrols must mean that rotondos car must have had a window broken out, or lorbeer's rolls was "keyed", or maybe shneiter was accosted by a bum looking for a handout (not rotondo this time). Can't let the three amigos suffer like that without a hard-line response!
One things for certain...it wasn't due to that malcontent Ruehle's constant bitching on behalf of those a..hole residents!
Panama Joes opened on May 1, 2009 under new ownership. So far, the ownership is not tied to the Belmont Shore business politics. The reason why Councilman DeLong is targeting this specific bar is because Panama Joes has stole most of the clientele and business from Acapulco Inn and Belmont Station which is hurting his friends.
Councilman DeLong had a meeting in his office on June 9, 2009 with the Police Vice Department, Business Licensing, Planning, the City Attorney, Gene Rotondo and a turncoat Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA) Boardmember. Other residents requesting to attend the meeting were denied. Panama Joes was identified several times during the meeting as a problem bar by Councilman DeLong and Business Association President Rotondo. As expected, Mr. Rotondo's Legends bar was not identified as the biggest problem for residents. This is similar to when Mr. Rotondo urged the BSRA to complain to the city’s code enforcement division to slow Cabo Cantina's opening on 2nd street.
Panama Joes has security in their parking lots. When someone appears to be intoxicated, they not only ask them if they can call them a cab, they even offer to pay for the cab. The owners went so far as to invite and provide dinner for nearby residents so they could ask them for their feedback after their grand opening. Furthermore, they gave out their personal cell phone number to local residents to call at any time if there are noise or public disturbance problems. Panama Joes is doing a remarkably better job of being a good neighbor than the other problem bars who could care less about local residents.
Mr. Rotondo's takes zero responsibility for his bar patrons' public disturbance problems created in front of residents' homes. His standard response to resident complaints about rowdy patrons from his bar is "prove they came from Legends."
Greed greed greed; shame shame shame geno!
Hat's off to the owners of Panama Joes. These smart guys better watch themselves, it sounds like PJ's owners can afford an attorney or two if they're wronged.
Wouldn't be the first time the city got it shoved to them; unfortunately we end up paying (remember-thanks to kellogg et al over McClure's homes fiasco...how many millions came out of our pockets for the contracted law firms?)
Rotondo is also the guy who pushed 30 year owner Don Heckman out of Acapulco Inn by enticing Don's landlord with more rent and with a promise to spend big money renovating the bar. Meanwhile, Don's out in the street or at Bono's every night since he no longer owns his bar.
Not only that, Rotondo got busted again for building Acapulco Inn illegally and currently has a stop work order. Get ready for some more high pitched whines and more of Mr. Rotondo's accusations that residents are the gestapo. His approved construction drawings indicated the garage doors were to be glass with chrome trim because the city code requires commercial storefronts to be 2/3 glass.
As you can see, Mr. Rotondo is really trying to spruce the neighborhood up with his cheap warehouse garage doors. I guess nobody told him that we residents like 2nd street to be a little more high end. Most garage service stations or auto body shops have nicer looking doors than Acapulco Inn.
Thanks.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/2008/daily/writing...
THANK YOU, High Hat, for responding to my 10AM inquiry; I am going to guess that last night ended on a reasonably peaceful note. And that's gotta be good!
If you review the below April 3, 2007 video at 1:15:00, you will hear Police Chief Batts specifically state at the Belmont Station entertainment license hearing (hearing item 1) "the beat car's primary function is 2nd street and the issues that happen there."
http://longbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?v...
One must wonder if police staffing changed after that. Did it have something to do with Legends opening later on December 1, 2007 after being shut down for 3-years due to its fire? Either Chief Batts was misleading the public with his SWORN TESTIMONY that the beat cops "primary function is 2nd street" or there was a reduction in 2nd street police staffing after multiple alcohol licenses and entertainment license were granted by Councilman DeLong over the past two year.
If you listen to the entire hearing item 1, you will hear Councilman DeLong insist Belmont Station bar needed a permanent entertainment license because the owners planned to convert it into a FINE SEAFOOD and STEAK RESTAURANT. Councilman DeLong approved the PERMANENT entertainment license for his FRIEND Gary Roth DESPITE the objections of multiple residents living nearby and DESPITE the recommendation of the police department for a temporary 1-year permit.
It’s been over 2-years and Belmont Station is still the seediest bar in Belmont Shore. There’s no FINE STEAK and SEAFOOD RESTAURANT. Mr. Roth used his money to instead buy the Acapulco Inn bar across the street with his business partner Gene Rotondo, who also owns Legends bar. Gary Roth broke his promises to upgrade Belmont Station. Instead, Mr. Rotondo and him have turned a formerly quiet Acapulco Inn bar into another neighborhood problem with three garage doors that open up to the street to keep the residents awake until after 2:00 am.
You have no clue Greet. Why are you now commenting on public sector investigations when Goodhue's investigations" would be private. Or maybe investigator Greet's onto something, Goodhue are you some sort of secret government agent?
The circle of Greet's logic goes round and round, round and round. The circle of Greet's logic goes round and round, round and round and round.
Reuctio ad absurdum-
To prove p (a declarative sentence).
Assume the opposite: Not q
Argue that from the assumption we would have to conclude q (another declaritive sentence)
Show that q is false (contradictory, absurd, wrong, not a acceptable solution,..... )
Conclude: p must be true
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An ad misericordiam- appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment.
Poor, poor, pitiful me!
Questions that, interestingly enough, usually go unanswered by those who claim to have specific knowledge of the area of inquiry.
This is why a good many of my comments are, in fact, interrogative, rather than declarative, in nature.
Could you please cite a specific example of where you believe I have employed the method of argument known as Reductio ad Absurdum?
Could you please cite a specific example of where you believe I have employed the method of argument known as Argumentum ad Misericordiam?
I respectfully request that you review the comments, of mine, that you appear to be referencing; copy and pasted, here, in full:
"I'm very much hoping to learn the current status of the concurrent investigations that were launched. It'd be instructive to see a comprehensive list of the laws, rules, regulations, policies and procedures the three entities involved determine were violated and by whom, what remedies they are seeking other than those already made public and what they recommend be done to avoid a recurrence of such an event."
You chose to respond to this comment in this manner, again copy and pasted in full:
"Greet Why launch this attack on ResidentsFirst and Sir Laurence? Sure you would love to see what "investigations" we are up to so that you can copy our ideas, snitch on our plans or attempt to use circular logic to deconstruct our arguments.
Maybe this is none of your business? This was obviously a good natured concern for how Sir Laurence is doing? Many of us communicate with Larry offline because he has his ear to the ground, many friends, and sometimes contributes pieces of valid valuable information to the community cause.
What make you think we would tell YOU anything of value?
Greet's comment "I'm very much hoping to learn the current status of the concurrent investigations that were launched. It'd be instructive to see a comprehensive list of the laws, rules, regulations, policies and procedures the three entities involved determine were violated and by whom, what remedies they are seeking other than those already made public and what they recommend be done to avoid a recurrence of such an event."
As evidence,your pathetic post earlier " Can anyone point me toward some factual data concerning the following? I'm very much interested in learning" received only 1 BRILLIANT post from howardx "should we write the column for you as well? I would not expect most of us to not even give you the time of day."
Based upon your response it occurred to me that you may have misunderstood my original inquiry and so I attempted to clarify in this way; again, copy and pasted in full:
"Sunshine: Your ongoing and continuous insults and disrespect are duly noted. I would urge you to seek clarification of a person’s comments before leaping to erroneous conclusions and issuing condemnations concerning them.
For the benefit of the more circumspect among us; I was referring to the concurrent investigations being conducted by the “three entities” I referenced, those being, I believe: the City of Long Beach, the AQMD and the California Coastal Commission and not to any other investigations that might have been launched from the private sector.
Such private investigations, while no less valid, are predominantly proprietary and rightly so.
By contrast the findings of the public agency investigations currently underway *must*, by law, be released to the public and, as stated, I am very interested in learning not only the results of these but also the current status if that can be determined."
Through this response I was genuinely trying to make it clear which investigations I was referring to in my original inquiry and, additionally, to make it clear that I understood the difference between public agency-initiated investigations (like those *I* was asking about) and private party-initiated investigations (like those *you* were referring to in your response).
There was, therefore, no need to berate and belittle me for asking about the private party-initiated investigations you seem to be a party to and seem to so strongly need to protect from me...I *never* asked about them.
Ok?
Reason Takes Back Seat In Second Street Debate
By Editorial Board
Published: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:58 PM PDT
Our boys in blue inadvertently exacerbated the situation with what appears to be a heavy-handed (or light trigger-fingered) response to a light-night altercation. Even though the shooting May 27, apparently had nothing to do with the bar scene beyond a security guard attempting to solve a problem and a lot of folks around as witnesses, it quickly became another flashpoint for the Second Street debate.
"OH SO HE WASN'T DRUNK AND HADN'T BEEN IN LEGENDS DRINKING? SURE ABOUT THAT HAIRY?"
We’re not downplaying the seriousness of the situation — just the seriousness of the response. Of course, the immediacy of Web site postings and the fact anyone can make comments without regard for credibility or accuracy has something to do with it as well.
"I WAS THINKING THE SAME ABOUT THE GRUNTION HAIRY. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE CREDIBLE OR ACCURATE? I HOLD YOU IN UTTER CONTEMPT AFTER YOUR RACIST EPISODE, WHICH YOU (WERE FORCED TO) ACKNOWLEDGED BUT THEN BOLDLY STATED THAT "THAT'S THE END OF IT"
MAYBE THE END OF IT AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED HAIRY,IN YOUR DREAMS MAYBE, BUT THE COMMUNITY'S GOT YOUR NUMBER! YOU'VE PROVEN YOURSELF TO BE A NON-CREDIBLE AND INACCURATE RACIST SCUMBAG!
You, on the other hand, come off as someone who has been totally manipulated. Who is the real "tool" here?
i was booted from legends last year for calling the police about a theft and a fight inside the restaurant. my friends were allowed to stay.
http://gazettes.com/articles/2009/06/10/opinion...
It appears that the Gazette Editorial "Bored" dimisses the bar problems on 2nd st. to "spark of spring fever trouble in the Shore".
Why does'nt the Gazette address the zoning and parking variances, unlimited number of alcohol liscenses and entertainment permits that have been recently issued near people who have owned their homes for over 20 years.
Explain to me why Legends is allowed to use our public sidwalk area to line up drunks waiting to get in?
What' lacking in Long Beach.....PLANNING-LEADERSHIP-ENFORCEMENT
The good Sir Laurence was quite busy on the PT website for many days recently. He may be in investigation mode as well ?
Are you also waiting for the other side of the story concerning several pending matters?
Apparently the first piece of the Wetlands Exchange is going into Closed Session again soon, within a week or two. More to follow.
Maybe this is none of your business? This was obviously a good natured concern for how Sir Laurence is doing? Many of us communicate with Larry offline because he has his ear to the ground, many friends, and sometimes contributes pieces of valid valuable information to the community cause.
What make you think we would tell YOU anything of value?
Greet's comment "I'm very much hoping to learn the current status of the concurrent investigations that were launched. It'd be instructive to see a comprehensive list of the laws, rules, regulations, policies and procedures the three entities involved determine were violated and by whom, what remedies they are seeking other than those already made public and what they recommend be done to avoid a recurrence of such an event."
As evidence,your pathetic post earlier " Can anyone point me toward some factual data concerning the following? I'm very much interested in learning" received only 1 BRILLIANT post from howardx "should we write the column for you as well? I would not expect most of us to not even give you the time of day.
For the benefit of the more circumspect among us; I was referring to the concurrent investigations being conducted by the “three entities” I referenced, those being, I believe: the City of Long Beach, the AQMD and the California Coastal Commission and not to any other investigations that might have been launched from the private sector.
Such private investigations, while no less valid, are predominantly proprietary and rightly so.
By contrast the findings of the public agency investigations currently underway *must*, by law, be released to the public and, as stated, I am very interested in learning not only the results of these but also the current status if that can be determined.
Police Officer Greet, your self-serving positions lobbying for anything pro-DeLong is obvious to us all. Your objectivity is beyond suspect as is your word when you told pretty much all of us in the past that you were done with us. Please reconsider keeping your word.
I suggest you go back to Councilman DeLong to get your next lobbyist opinion piece to post on numerous blogs at taxpayer expense as you sit at your police desk. Isn't it ironic that Councilman DeLong claims there no money in the budget for additional police in Belmont Shore, yet there is enough money in the budget for police officers to sit at a desk all day long blogging and writing columns.
As to your various allegations, insinuations and accusations against me, I will respond to them only insofar as to state that they are completely unfounded, without merit and patently unbefitting the elected President of an otherwise fine community organization. As is the case with all of my colleagues, when I am on duty, the people of this most excellent city get more than their money’s worth from me.
When, as is currently the case, I am not on duty…when I am in my own home and on my own time…I am free to spend, or even to misspend, that time however I so choose.
But thanks very much for your concern in that regard.
Can you disclose anything more about the Legend's shooting? The extent to which the Press Tele has apparently killed the story concerns many. Also the huge number of deleted comments on their website is highly questionable.
Your LBPost Article concerning this was helpful but Mr Ruehle is entitled to the privilege of his Office, and the latitude afforded to it. If he has overstepped, his 'Electorate' is the final arbiter of that matter?
There is no doubt that he is popular with his resident members, and that he tirelessly speaks to many of their frustrations, to the best of his abilities .
This is an often a thankless, costly, uncompensated, challenging and difficult job.
I chose to file a formal complaint against Mr. Hitchcock’s State Contractor’s license because of what he and his company did on Sub-area 23 and that office recently called me to follow up on the complaint. That investigation appears to be proceeding as well.
I apologize but I’m unfortunately not able to offer any additional information concerning the 5/28 officer involved shooting on 2nd Street. I’m certain that either the Police Department or the District Attorney’s Office will release additional information to the public when they feel it is appropriate to do so.
I’m pleased that you found my LBPOST.com column on the 2nd Street topic to be helpful. Thank you. As you say, Mr. Ruehle is most assuredly entitled to the privileges of the office he has now twice earned. Latitude, in my mind, is quite another matter however but again you are correct in that his constituents must and shall ultimately determine his fitness to continue to serve in his current capacity.
The question of precisely how representative of the majority of Shore residents either the BSRA generally, or Mr. Ruehle specifically actually are seems, to me, a very valid one. Perhaps the BSRA, its Board and Mr. Ruehle as its President are, indeed, appropriately representing the true sentiments of the majority of Shore residents and perhaps they are not. One way to assess this dispassionately, I believe, is to determine how many adult Shore residents there actually are and then compare that with how many BSRA members there are and then compare that with how many BSRA members voted for their current Board, including Mr. Ruehle. I believe such an analysis could prove very educational.
Speaking tirelessly on a cause or a position is often necessary, especially when seeking action from government, at any level. My only point, despite the erroneous conclusions that some here insist upon leaping to, is that I believe a duly elected leader of any community organization should possess the ability to achieve and retain the high ground in such discussions…to scrupulously avoid even the perception that he or she is resorting to personal insult or misinformation or mischaracterization or rhetoric or unfounded allegation in their attempts to persuade others of the rightness of their causes.
Mr. Ruehle does not appear to possess such ability or, if he does, he does not seem particularly willing to demonstrate it. This, I believe, is truly unfortunate and for the several reasons I have already mentioned in other postings here.
Mr. Ruehle’s job as BSRA President must indeed, as you say, be “often a thankless, costly, uncompensated, challenging and difficult” one. Though I wouldn’t presume to speak to the challenges of his particular organization or Board, not being a member of either, I have served on several such volunteer Boards in my life and I can fully empathize with the challenges he no doubt faces. But these are challenges he *volunteered* for, twice, after all.
Having done so I believe he has a duty not only to represent the majority of his constituents to the best of his ability…a responsibility he obviously takes extremely seriously, and rightly so…but to do so in a courteous, respectful and professional manner and, difficult though it may prove for him, to avoid sinking to the self-same levels and tactics and behaviors of which he continuously accuses others. It’s that second part of his duty that I do not see much evidence that he understands or recognizes, let alone meets.
But I readily acknowledge that this is simply my personal opinion, expressed as a private citizen, on my own time and from my own home, and quite possibly inaccurate. As always, Residents, thank you for your continued willingness to engage with me in a respectful and intellectually honest manner!
Friday May 22, 2009
Bald eagles may be majestic, beautiful birds, but according to an Associated Press story in USA Today, they can also be bullies.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-05-18...
So now DeLong will attempt to use the recent issues as an excuse to create an entertainment district on 2nd St...whoops....can't call it that now can we. All we asked for is more police, why is Gary now so attentive to the problem he ignored for 2years!?
If the bars owners do not scream in protest about the creation of the new "belmont shore residential mixed with retail, bars and restaurant district" then the residents should be very scared of this scenario.
This may be a good idea. However, Gary DeLong does not live in Belmont Shore and he is not the right person to lead this effort. He has a history of shady looking deals with committees made up of people who already support his pre-determined position.
Let's just stick with the increased police presence for now and hold of on re-zoning the entire neighborhood until we have someone in office who the residents can trust.
Several have read all of the articles, all of the comments which are attached to them,and Councilwoman Schipske's very interesting piece about political retribution, appearing on her District5Journal. We think that it might be helpful to post an interesting piece written in response to the Press Telegram Article which appeared to attempt to spin, delect or obfuscate the present Shore debate over to Mr Mike Ruehle's DUI, many years ago.
The issues include, but are not limited to, Diminished Quality of Life, Diminished Property Values, Negligence by the Bars, City,Staff, and Councilman, Failure to adequately Permit, Police and Manage the businesses, and BSBA neglect.
How driving event, to which Mr Ruehle appears to have been penitent and contrite, bears upon the growing problems in the area, seems remote, or tenuous at best. One upset group of readers apparently opined as follows;
Dear Editors of the Press Telegram,
How does this story about Mr Ruehle's past bear upon the malfeasance, and misfeasance of the Bars, Council and Staff here?
Wasn't this story about a guy who got drunk in Legend's, went on a rampage, destroyed property, and got shot? And the common lament that too many Liquor Licenses have been granted in the area? And about a troubling style shift in the demographic being attracted to these high volume bars?
Why did Ms Puente's do a one sided article, quoting only Mr Rotunda, who has since been apparently proved to have lied in his claim that the Defendant was not in his business immediately before this horrible event? So where is the story about the outrage in the community?, It was newsworthy for Channel 2,4 and 7 news at the top of the 11PM broadcast?Why isn't part of the story not about this material misstatement?'' The perpetrator was not in my club?'' Why wasn't the BSRA quoted in Ms Puentes piece?
Why did you then drop the story, wait, and come back with what many will view as a 'Hit Piece' on a duly elected Residents Rep for merely advocating as his members have directed him to?
There appears to be Editorial bias here which has a rather blind eye towards offending the Bars, who purchase print advertising from you..
Many fail to see how, when and where Mr Ruehle's Character was placed in issue as to relevant and material issues here?
And finally, there plenty of skeletons in the closets of the 14th Floor of City Hall, and elsewhere, and how, when and where you determine what is, and what is not ''out of bounds'' betrays you a little bit here.
It as if you desire that we support your competitors to better glean the truth, the other side of the story, or balance.
Mr Ruehle is not on trial here, and most of us are not stupid enough to believe that either.
We are all works in progress, and by the way, has Mr Ruehle harmed his community, or has this out-sized growth of the barely controlled Party Zone? We hear that this article has actually placed more fuel onto the fire.
Finally, we have been watching 2nd Street nightly, thanks LBPD for placing Officers back on Patrol again. Please, keep it up and get some plain clothes, and ABC Officers back into these bars again, and don't telegraph your presence.. They have been over pouring way too many customers, and there is too much drug use the area too. The bars attract that element as well.. (END)
Sounds fair,but several want this to be one of the posts that are not deleted. As this story broke, comment after comment , critical of the PT, the City, or the embattled Councilman came down, but comment in supports of the Bars, or the Councilman, stayed up.
It troubles many when Free and Fair debate is censored, or stifled.
http://schipskedistrict5journal.com/
and other goings on. Sounds like she's not too enamored with some of her colleagues; jeez I wonder why?
I have to hand it to her...she's got a set of ovaries. Keep it up Gerrie!
Any suggestions?
I just want factual information to be shared and not all of the rumors and BS.
My father always told me that it is pointless to yell at the crazy people in the asylum, because then you appear crazier than they are. I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Ruehle is one of those people, it does not matter what anyone else says or what the facts may be he is going to believe what he wants to believe and make up the rest. He has to be the center of attention and does not care who he steps on to make his distorted point. He has personally attacked city staff members who are only trying to do their jobs, who have no dog in the fight. He has repeatedly named staff members on these various blogs and has tried to discredit them with no regard for their personal feelings or their family members. I know that some people would just say that it comes with the territory of being a city employee, but you would not want your friends or family to be attacked in this manner.
I feel sorry for Mr. Ruehle that he is so obsessed in his distain for Mr. Delong, Mr. Rotondo, Mr. West, and Mr. Foster, as well as the members of the parking commission. And then we can also talk about his dislike for the police department, code enforcement, zoning, and every other city department.
I really don't know why anyone would want to try and work with Mr. Ruehle, especially knowing that it was going to be a no win situation. Could someone please tell me if there is one, just one, city department that he has not alienated?
Why does he have so many important friends elsewhere?
And if you work for the City, and are on the payroll, are you merely runnng interference for the 'family'? Dysfunctional as it may be at times? And don't we residents pay for the party downtown anyway, and deserve much better at times?? Where does accountability factor in here?
Try as you may to attempt to put Mr Ruehle on trial here, we are not that stupid, and he is not the causal factor here, nor at fault.
The BSBA has failed in it's duty to include relevant BSRA representation on their Board, and at their meetings, and the councilman deserves all of the criticism we observe for refusing to work with him. This is his Duty, his job, and his responsibility.
This click has a long history of singling one or two people out, calling them crazy, or a CAVE person, or a misanthrope, obstreperous, etc. It is all a pathetic game that fools few.
Time to man up, grow a pair of stones and play the ball where it lays. None of us are going anywhere, in fact, we are getting stronger.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen ''SmellinCup''.
aliases
shoremeup
lb employee
FYI
Rose park resident
Happy with my experience
Shoremeup
Just a resident
so mike was exactly right, it IS the same person.
Waaaaaaaaaaa"I choose to not play such games with you, or others, any longer."
John Greet.
The TDW Demockracy, lets all vote to see who's insulting who.
You seem to think that you hold all the truths about leadership, Democracy,the American way and Mike Ruehle. An opinion is never "accurate", it is just one side of the story. Unfortunaely you seem to have a problem dealing with this reality. Why don't you keep your windy whiney word?.... Waaaaaaaaaaa"I choose to not play such games with you, or others, any longer." John Greet.
We are receiving some very interesting feedback. Scores of input. Pulling some or most of the BSBA funding was suggested by Staff last year Due to Economic Necessity, and these committees have outlived their mandate, and fueled these Nuisances. At bare minimum, the BSRA should be given power over half of these earmarks to commit on behalf of resident desires..
RECALL DoRong
Why don't you just keep your rumors and hearsay to yourself and wait for the truth?
Oh that's right... "You can't handle the truth"
Getting rid of the Belmont Shore Parking Advisory Commission would give us least $500,000 per year back into the public coffer. That would be nice! Maybe the City can call the note on all buddy loans too.
I would like residents to have more input on how the 500k gets spent in the shore however.
Play to your strongest strength, which is your ablility to get people excited, motivated,educated and interested in changing the way our goverment operates.
My experience is that solutions have to come from the community and that local government by itself is incapable of change or intelligent effective action (too political).
The Belmont Shore issues I see are as follows:
1. Planning zoning variances without parking (reduces resident parking and pushes bar problem/crime further into the residential neighborhood)
2. Late night operating hours (2am) creating noise complaints and crime.
3. Overserving of alcohol by bar owners
4. DUI driving, safety and property damage from accidents and increased crime.
5. Police department recommending approval of new alcohol liscenses, entertainment permits and extended operating hours without adequate enforcement.
6. The police department's lax attitude about alcohol, nuisance crimes, 2nd street special events parking and traffic impacts on residents and ilegal loud motorcycles.
7. The city of LB's lack of concern about safety and quality of life in Belmont Shore. None of this behavior would be tolerated in other parts of the 3rd district:Park Estates, Alamitos Bay, Naples, Alamitos Heights. Why the double standard?
8. Closed door meetings and transparency.
9. The Belmont Shore Parking Commission.
10. Buddy Loans and spot zoning for special people.
11. The city refusal to recognize the Belmont Shore Residents Association as a voice of local residents.
12. How can we increase public participation in government to rebalance the power of special interest minorities in decision making and elections?
As President of the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA), we currently have monthly meetings where many of these issues are addressed and discussed. Guest speakers knowledgeable in the topic (City Attorney, Health Department, POLB, etc.) make presentations at most of the meetings. Also, a police officer attends most meetings to discuss local crime issues. The meetings are usually 2-hours long and are conducted the second Thursday of every month in the Bay Shore Library in Belmont Shore (a scheduling issue will shorten this month’s meeting to 1-hour).
There are several potential solutions to the bar patron public disturbance issues caused by nuisance bars. The first step that should be taken is to stop approving alcohol licenses (both new and transfers) in Belmont Shore. According to the ABC, 6 alcohol licenses is the recommended number in Belmont Shore. At 54 alcohol licenses, Belmont Shore is already hugely oversaturated and those excess alcohol serving businesses can only be economically successful by attracting residents from outside the community, many of whom have proven disrespectful and disruptive.
Second, pull the business licenses from problem nuisance bars like Legends and Belmont Station. This requires a police presence to do so. Residents can, and have been calling the police about the nuisance and noise problems these bars create. However, there are no police to actually report the problems. Unless a cop files a report, the problem does not exist no matter how often or how many calls for service residents make to the police department.
Third (highest priority), vote Councilman DeLong out of office. At any time, Councilman DeLong could have used his influence but chose not to because of his close ties to the owners of the problem bars. Councilman DeLong could easily have put his foot down and prevented this and many problem situations from escalating over the past two years. Conversely, and over the objections of the community, he has facilitated the situation becoming worse by sponsoring additional alcohol licenses, entertainment licenses and bar expansions while refusing to work with the community and BSRA to find solutions to this problem. When ever residents have asked him for additional police support, Councilman DeLong claims it is not possible due to economic conditions. I’ve been hearing him say that since he was our Councilman and before the city was in its current budget deficit situation. In reality, that is his way of protecting his bar owner buddies. If there are no cops, there are no police reports to document a nuisance problem.
Fourth is to consider implementing any or all of the following suggestions to curb the escalating public disturbance problems in Belmont Shore.
1. There are only a handful of bars open after 11:00 pm when most of the problems occur. One proposal would be to increase the business license tax by $20,000 - $50,000 per year for any Belmont Shore business serving alcohol after 11:00 pm. The money can be used to fund additional police officers dedicated to policing the bars during the anticipated problem hours without having to draw police resources from other parts of Long beach.
2. Impose a midnight curfew ordinance on Belmont Shore alcohol sales. This would change the bar closing hours to a time convenient for multiple beat 10 police staffing. Furthermore, it might cause individuals hell-bent on getting drunk and causing problem to not come to our Belmont Shore community. After all, how many residents would miss the opportunity to have an adult beverage after midnight?
3. Impose Sobriety check points going into and out of Belmont Shore to discourage over drinking and troublemaking. This has been asked for on several occasions. Most recently, Commander Renaud was non-committal when asked during the January 8, 2009 BSRA meeting whether she would consider doing so.
4. Utilize some of the $700,000 per year of Parking Commission money to pay for additional police dedicated to Belmont Shore rather than continuing to use this money to attract more out of town troublemakers. After all, it is the public’s money with the majority of these funds coming from Belmont Shore parking meters. This would create additional police staffing for Belmont Shore without drawing police resources from other parts of Long Beach.
5. Utilize some of the $340,000 per year of Business Association funds to pay for additional police dedicated to Belmont Shore. After all, the majority of these funds are provided by tax assessments on 2nd street businesses, many of which are the problem bars. Furthermore, most of this money is currently spent attracting on marketing to attract people living outside of Belmont Shore, many of which are disrespectful to our community. According to the police report to the Business Association, it is people from outside our Belmont Shore neighborhood that are causing the majority of problems. This would create additional police staffing for Belmont Shore without drawing police resources from other parts of Long Beach.
6. Impose permit parking in the residential areas from 11:00 pm to 3:00 am for one block on each side of 2nd street to reduce the number of out-of-town trouble makers parking in the residential areas. If anything, the increased parking ticket revenue and reduced police services should offset the city's loss in sales tax revenue from over serving alcohol to out of the area troublemakers.
Be positive. Tape a flier to impacted people's front doors and ask them their opinion on the situation invite them to this problem solving party. Put an agenda outline together with all the issues and possible solutions you can think of.
Do this outside of your normal BSRA meetings say at a barbeque or picnic so people feel comfortable speaking. Put clipboards on tables and let shy people write in problem descriptions and potential solutions. Then let everyone publically discuss the ideas and draft a proposal.
Be inclusive not exclusive. Invite everyone on you mailing list. Invite impacted people from Belmont Heights and Belmont Shore shop owners. Ideas and solutions come from everywhere. Lead by doing. Show others how democracy can work in Long Beach.
Staff fails to see the connectivity of the issues here quite often, or the resonance within the community.
Given all of the missteps over the last 3 years, there is a moment in time where a RECALL Petition becomes an easier alternative. Some people might be wise to purposely boycott this meeting, and use it as a venue to beginning gathering Petition signatures?
This District has a long history of preferring a home grown community advocate and activist who can better relate to the average resident, not just their Committee to Elect.
Many are now looking at Mr. DeLong's tenure as a failed, acrimonious, in-effective business experiment gone wrong.
This 'A' list versus the ''*hit list'' game has strained the community for far too long. The Duty to serve our ENTIRE District begins and ends with the elected Representative being a PUBLIC Servant, not a Country Club 'boy' who picks and choses who gets to come to the ''frat party'.
Sure we can recall but we had better be prepared and organized to transform all of Long Beach's city government. We must follow, out and stop the money gravey train then the carpetbaggers and civic greeders will leave Long Beach.
(Corrected mispelling on gravy. Better punctuation next. Tiny keyboard)
Notice that Mayor Kang credits PLANNING, LEADERSHIP, and PARTNERSHIP for its low crime rate. I noticed that Irvine does not approve an unlimited number of alcohol licenses without required parking and operating hours until 2 am directly next to a residential community. I bet they don't allow drunks to engage in violence, fight, drive while falling down drunk on our neighborhood streets or engage in disgusting behavior in public and on residential streets. Long Beach government officials excuse this type of behavior as if us residents deserve this type of treatment.
Appears to me that Development Services (planning), the Mayor & City Council (leadership), the Police & City's refusal to work with the BSRA and other residents (partnership) have all failed in their public service jobs to ensure our right to enjoy our property with basic safety and security.
better comparisons would be cities like seattle or atlanta in my opinion. much more in common.
Most of us had no idea there were over 54 alcohol licenses on 2nd street and we are not happy with this number. Belmont Shore used to be a nice family community oriented dining and shopping district. Sure there were bars (which I've been in) but no late night drunk fest happy hours that I remember. "Over served" alcohol is a key issue and that is the bar management's responsibility.
These selfish pigs must be dues-paying members of unionboss gordon's organization; they act just like that phony prick does(I-me-mine and you pay).
Your focusing on the BSRA is quite fitting and appropriate for you, though; someone who is happy to have the million dollars that gets bled by the "civic leaders" go to such important things as landscaping and keeping 2nd Street beautiful than something stupid like adequate police patrols..
Why are highly profitable bar owners given loans which are intended to help out struggling businesses in poorer sections of this town?
The City Auditor and/or LA County Prosecuter should take a close look at both the BS Parking Commission, the Business Improvement Areas,Business Associations, LB Chamber of Commerce and the City's Economic Development department. Special interest is draining huge sums of money out the city's coffer. It all started with Long Beach Inc.
Also, there is no reason for the city to help the "poorer" parts of town exclusively. We already overly subsidize said parts of town with more police and social services. If our gov't is going to get involved in private industry (and I am opposed regardless of where that may be) it seems only fair that once in awhile we do something for the tax generating part of the city.
Now, he may be making millions for all I know. But the restaraunt business is one of low margins so my guess is he is not. But you nor I really know.
Super-Mex seems to be able to produce a profit with well priced food, yet they don't need to offer "happy hour" from 11:00 pm to 2:00 am or get buddy loans from the city. What about Panama Joe's? Did they get a buddy loan from LB for expansion? How do I apply for a buddy LB loan?
lbresident's crony economic theories are what caused the current economic meltdown- Fed, State, and Long Beach. I guess what they mean by "free markets" is that they want public money for FREE! The business buddies don't want to pay taxes or support public programs but they sure all have their hands out for socialized bailouts.
We have not heard much about the wetlands land swap, have we? Maybe someone is investigating WrongBeach!
but you may be right that legends makes a lot of money. I don't know.
by the way, businesses don't pay taxes. when you understand that, you might understand a small bit about economics. baby steps...
I'm all for ending the corporate tax and taxing consumption directly as long as we get rid of the silly notion that corporations are PERSONS and entitled to the same protecions under the law. How about that?
businesses don't pay taxes. It's not a policy, good or bad. Its a fact.
Your sense of public money is akin to the BS Parking Commission who don't consider the funds collected in the meters Belmont Shore to be "public" money. One of the members of the commission actually SAID this in public a few months ago . . .
We live in sea of mendacity and corruption. "Wrong Beach" indeed.
ROI's on Bars is a different story.
Clearly the total forgiveness of the references loans is bad
judgment.Extension possibility-but not total forgiveness.
This also makes it more difficult for Councilman DeLong to accomplish his frequently spoken about goal of turning Belmont Shore into an ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT for his commercial property owner friends who can charge twice as much rent for a bar/restaurant than they can get for a retail store.
And how is that Pine Avenue entertainment district working out for the city? Seems to me like an awful lot of police resources are being thrown at Pine Avenue every night because of the wonderful clientele attracted.
In the mean time, over 109 comments, critical of the bars or pleading the residents concerns disappeared from the PT Website? Then the 2 stories quickly fell off of their blog, Thursday and Friday? Nothing on Saturday ?
This generally only happens when connected 'A" list members call the Editors and ask them to ''Kill the story'', because it is ''bad for Long Beach''. Gee guys, it is not the other way around is it? Too many bars are bad for Long Beach?
Anyone attempting to ''ignore this....and it will go away'' is merely ignoring a groundswell of simmering, swelling acrimony.
If the PT wants to grow it's base again, it needs to exercise Journalistic Integrity, and never censor the other side, or at least feign a modicum of balance and objectivity? Deleting web posts is pure censorship and akin to Soviet Journalism?
It is really odd how quick they killed this story, and that they never even interviewed the residents rep's, or civic leaders in the area?. This bias is shameful and arguably self defeating.
Let's guess, the Gazzette will do a story about the bar owners
being 'HERO'S"....pillars of our community.....indeed...''LEGENDS"??
We hope that the PT some day realizes that it has lost most of it's readers due to being too monolithic, myopic, and too far right of center for today's Long Beach.
Oh right..deleting comments and killing stories, and closing a matter with a 'support a friend'slant piece has an economic justification. Support any print advertiser at all costs(Legend's, etc) ....and fluff their beloved Councilman's bed for him each and every night?
Have you ever heard even one remotely disparaging word , inference or implication about the Councilman there? Of course not, he has been anointed, and apparently walks on water?? Are we running a ultra conservative Republican Newsletter here, not that that's bad, but at least admit it, and change your name to the 'Long Beach Republican', or something?
Why such deference to the truth or balance with respect to Mr DeLong? Because he paved a few streets for the Editors? Fixed a curb or two? Oh right, we are going to restart the Republican Revolution right here in Long Beach?
Politics aside, and kidding aside, this obstreperous, walled , bifurcation between the 'A' list, and the common resident has to end. It is so pathetically obvious, if not blatant.
Let's seriously continue to fully explore the merits of a recall !! And nip this whole mess in the bloated, lazy, spoiled, entitled, elitist BUD !! We taxpayers pay for the Party, and deserve a much bigger piece of the pie..
And once you take a real close look at a few of these characters, you learn, that ''The Emperor has no clothes''. It is all about what is in it for them. Power, or Money, or Status, or Greed.
And by the way, where is the Mayor's Comment about all of this? Laryngitis again?
He needs to take the midnight tour with the residents down there to see how much of a Hell Hole some of the area has morphed into since 2006. He and Mr DeLong need to dress in soft clothes, put on some shades, and poke around the alleys, and side streets to learn how things have gone from bad, to worse. They need to start walking their district again, not the Golf Course.
People are talking about riding their Harley's without Mufflers past his house at 230 AM , and then over to Park Estates to park at DeLong;s house to yell back and forth, relieve themselves, maybe blow some chunks(vomit), wrestle in their hedges, throw trash all over so that maybe, they begin to get the picture??
What's it going to take to restore sanity, and sanctity to formerly safe, quiet, neighborhoods?
So that you know, citizen Patrols are mobilizing and neighborhood watch is on it's way back with proposed video units, armed security, and plain clothes appearing Chrysler's, and other things on the options list? This should be interesting, educational and newsworthy. ''Armed Residents storm the Streets...News at 11''
What do you want to bet that a few retired cops, and others, rolling around the area from 10 PM until 3AM, in 3 or 4 'Blues Mobiles' will detain more criminals than the one poor cop trying to keep a lid on 54 Liquor vendors, and all of their thousands of imported Hellions with their related mayhem?
Other residents observe, that placing young cops, wearing shorts, on mountain bikes to spend most of their time flirting with the 'hotties' during the Summer daytime hours is a bit of a joke. They need to be gathering Probable Cause, not phone numbers. We need strong, tough, large Police at night, not smiling, tanned 'Hooter hunters'' laughing all of time during the gravy hours like they are on vacation.. You hear this a lot.
Tell them to put on the vest, and the long pants, so they can drag tackle a few morons when necessary, and deploy them from 10 until 3am, right on top of the trouble bars.. Bring back field sobriety tests too.
When the shore was safe, there was always an additional plain clothes officer weaving their way through all of the bars all night too. They were not the friend of the bar owner either. And the Vice Cops and ABC did their job too?
A Midnight Curfew is simple, and we could all get some sleep again. Let them all leave the party a little earlier so that theycan finish their night of binge drinking elsewhere?
It would be so nice to see the Shore get peaceful at Midnight like other nice areas.
If they want to die an anachronism, appealing to days long past, so be it, but they do not have less than 17% penetration for no reason. If they could merely continue to better relate to the real Long Beach, all of it,they might not be down to 10 employees in a rented building, out sourcing a lot of their copy?
There are 8 Democrats on Council, and what we hope is a Democratic Mayor in the center seat. Why does the hard right continue to thing that it is only their party, and exclusively their punch bowl?
Do you honestly believe that beloved old Iowa by the Sea is somewhere just over the horizon, with Ozzie and Harriet, if only the hard right agenda would take root? Good luck. We are not in Irvine nor do we want to be.
Can we sell you the Desmond Bridge possibly? How about the Queen Mary?
How about the Wetlands for 6 times cost?
Regardless, it is unlikely that any daily newspaper is going to be offering serious substance anytime soon.
Those in City Hall used to get very nervous when the IPT would call asking questions as well, because their in depth, probing stories cost plenty of insiders their jobs over the decades.
Of course, they had a huge staff then. In the 50's, they printed 6 editions a day.
The point is, Dave Wielenga is well acknowledged for being the best investigative Journalist around here, and the PT should have never let him go. He had many years on their staff and made great contributions to their paper.
Most interestingly to some, he has the respect of his readership and peers for toppling not one, but two corrupt Mayors in our area, both which resigned, under Criminal Indictment.
We are quite fortunate to have him here, and the fact that some of the 'operators' in this town have indigestion from time to time, due to the power of his pen, is wonderful.
As for all of the scrutiny upon City Hall, or certain 'A' list types recently, well, Mr Wielenga has an excellent 'nose', and witout revealing too much, where there is smoke, there is fire.
One of the best Attorneys in California told us recently.., in the context of exposing some of problems downtown, '' Thank God for the District Weekly, and the Long Beach Report''. Without them, too many things would slip through the cracks.
While,as opined a few weeks ago it is obvious that there is no
Ben Bradlee at the Press Telegram(though there certainly might
be some potential Ben Bradlees-----
If a story does not first appear in the listing...HIT MORE HEADLINES..
it has been my experience that will bing up many---BUT NOT ALL
of the stories..thought they may be archived.
Try this also: click on the NOTIFY area..letting you know when additional
comments are posted....PT will then send the link....am not sure how long
that would last for..but am going to call Chris Berry(499 1287)-on line edition
is his puppy....have suggest to him to examine:
l.if the only link can pull up any article regardless of how old...
2.Have it driven by number of blogged comments....think would be the higher the
the number....indicates continued interest...and develop also maybe....a thread
that could be brought up if one so elected...which would contain all stoires with
a certain time frame......recognizing that on line is charting unknown quanities
each day.....in the evolving cyber world/
We clicked more headlines and the interesting stories simply vanished? But the rub is that real time, as this story broke, and developed, we copied the pages to files, and watched the essays questioning the Bars, or the Politicians, or the Police conduct, disappearing one by one. By the end of day one we noticed that about 50 salient comments were removed? The clue is when the main story says ''see 150 comments'', and the last comment says number 207. We went back and saw the numbers skip large blocks of posts which were clearly legitimate, fair, adequately respectful, and interesting.
The community needs to be aware that Mr Ruehle's use of the PT websight was arbitrarily and capriciously blocked for several months? What's wrong? Is he Osama Binladen or something?
Many have noticed how the comments on the PT get sanitized during the day, and along the way to conform with the Editorial slant. There is a discernable pattern here which appears to prop up a few of the powers that 'purportedly' be?
Denying protected speech is fundamentally unfair. None of the deleted, retained for evidence, content was patently offensive? None of it was akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre? (Examples of Constitutionally allowed restrictions upon speech) Doing this makes you feel as if the thought police are at work? Or as if El Presidente Fidel himself uses the editing shears in order to control the message?
This pattern of deleted posts just may be disciminatory, an actionable.
Some of the gang still have smoke pouring out of their boxers because the Editor of the paper has actually had the audacity to claim to certain people that he is the most powerful person in town? A 21st century Citizen Kane ? (ego wise) Oh please !! Get over yourself !!
Now, Sir Laurence, you are good at fashioning 'old school' remedies. How about crafting a plea deal of sorts whereby Prince DeLong and Roman Commander Foster( sorry ) have to do 30 days community service by trying to live, work, and sleep in any of the homes behind the " Bars Gone Wild' zone? And they can observe, smell, see and help clean up the disgusting messes every morning ?
These ''pour them into oblivion' bars wouldn't last a week.
Let them try to put up with this mayhem and then be up at 6am, rested and ready for another day of hard work? Maybe we can roll our 130 decibel Harleys past these bar owners homes, at 6am, and see how they like being awakened in the middle of their night?
Bar owners sleep until noon and they just do not get it until you give them a nice taste of it.
Kudos to LBPD for FINALLY rousting some of the staggering drunks that we have had to put up with since the 2006 election and this ''anything goes' shift in policy.
When a Councilman is protecting a bar owner, they call off the cops to prevent complaints, and points against the Liquor Licenses. No filed cases, no arrests, no citations, no threat to the Liquor sales. This is a very old, very well know protection racket ploy.
This whole problem begins and ends with Council and Staff, looking the other way for a 'Buddy', who Unlawfully, and Negligently pours way too much booze to maximize profits, community consequences be damned.
And when you express concern, or ask questions, they attempt to shut off the microphone, delete the post, call you nuts, ban you from the meeting, give you the get a life speech, and then they attempt to ignore you. And then they wonder why you have to come down to Council and Lob some grenades at them?
Then we SUE them, or file something, and win, again and again?.
We are now waiting for the Gazzettes 'Pinche Salts Spewer'' to polish Gene, Bill and Kurt's testicles with a fluff piece, until they look like glowing, glossy Christmas Ornaments. Just wait, somehow he will atempt to call this overblown, exaggerated, the residents fault for investing their sweat and blood into their home, the defendants fault solely, and somehow the BSRA's fault?? Talk about a guy who needs to learn to be fair, and grow a pair !
I patently reject your implication that those cops who work here but do not live here do not have "a personal interest in the safety and quiet enjoyment of (this) community". Our cops literaly place their safety and, indeed, their very lives at risk each and every time they suit up hit the streets. One doesn't get any more "personally interested" than that. Do you truly believe that the pay alone is a sufficient motivator to assume such risks? For people, like our cops, many of whom have spouses and children at home? Truly?
Our cops are among the best trained, most competent and most professional municipal law enforcement officers in the nation, perhaps even the world. Long Beach has and, with exceedingly rare exception, will receive that sort of excellent service from her cops no matter *where* they choose to reside.
But here are some ideas ...since some here seem so enamored of cutting already below median pay and benefits. Offer some realistic incentives of another sort for more of our cops to reside here: Mortgage or rent subsidies would help, a lot. Free or discounted City-provided utilities (like natural gas, water and refuse collection) would also. How about free or discounted gasoline at any City-operated pump? Free medical care through the Occupational Health Office of the City's Health Department?
Offer even a couple of these reasonable incentives and you will likely see many more Long Beach cops move here...or move BACK here...because then it will suddenly become more affordable for them to do so...on the below median salaries some are content to continue to pay them.
Way to go Long Beach- give Rotondo and pals a sweetheart $500k 'loan', allow him to illegally expand his bar without adding additional parking, then have to utilize already strained City resources to deal with the aftermath. Genius.
Councilman DeLong is the problem. At any time he could have put his foot down to stop this BS going on in Belmont Shore. However, he values his personal relationships with Mr. Rotondo and his partner Gary Roth much higher than the resident taxpayers including myself who voted for him in the last election. I know I won't make that same mistake again in next April's election.
Meanwhile, the deadly gangs that have now infiltrated and own West of Pine St. (down to Broadway) run amok. Look at where the police shootings have occurred.
Let the bars pay for creating these issues, but we actually need expanded police presence and enforcement over here.
And a major part of the problem is that there is normally one police car in an area that runs from Bluff Heights to Seal Beach on weekends at bar closing time. That lack of presence sends a message that you can get away with acting like an idiot.
I am glad that you feel safe in our neighborhood - that is very important for residents (and I feel the same way). However, as a BSRA representative I am working with many residents who do not share your feeling of safety. Maybe they chose to live closer to 2nd St than you - but I don't think that makes their concerns any less valid.
I did choose to live here. And I am now choosing to help other residents make our neighborhood better. Most people I have met here understand and support that concept. But I guess there will always be those that don't like change and would prefer that you 'just live with it'. To each their own.
However, as a 30-year resident, who does live close to Second Street (and Legends), I do not hear those same complaints about the bars from residents. And, as you so aptly stated, that doesn't make our concerns any less valid either. That's not to say that we haven't experienced the urination, vomiting, et al., ... we have, and no, it is not acceptable.
Maybe I'm jaded ... I've witnessed so many groups of BSRA/BSIA representatives come and go through the years. The problems faced by your predecessors were the same, and nothing has ever changed. Not that I believe change isn't possible ... it is. Unfortunately, I do not place much hope or enthusiasm in the efforts of the residents' organization, to be that agent of change. However, I've learned to accept the various negatives of life here (really ... they are limited when compared with other areas), and to embrace all that is auspicious to life in the Shore. And ... it hasn't harmed my property values in the least! ;-)
Here are a couple of neighbors near you publicly speaking about their challenges with bar patrons as they leave our neighborhood.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Long-Be...
30-years of no change would jade anyone. You don't have to be enthusiastic, just support the residents who are trying to make things even better.
Jaded?! Nope ... not at all! I am, however, realistic as to what can be accomplished. And, I could be very enthusiastic toward the residents' group, if I witnessed more than the posturing that has gone on for so many years ... now about them, I am jaded. Same with the council rep ... I wish someone who truly embraces the interest of the communities would step forward to run, instead of using the position as a stepping-stone to further political aspirations. Ok ... I know that's a pipe dream! LOL!
And ... for the record ... I do not know the Legends' owners, anyone who is employed there, nor do I patronize the establishment.
This site has a few cretens that immediately jump to the defense of the BSBA, or their most problematic Bar Owners , by attempting to Demonize Mike Ruehle with this monolithic, 'kill the messenger, kill the message'' spin machine mentality.
Hopefully this was an understandable friendly fire incident. This may all simply begin and end with the devisive nature of the sitting Councilman who has needlessly pitted ''business buddies'' against the residents far too many times..
I am also told Police Officers have been advised by their supervisors to keep their mouths shut and not release any information to the public. Apparently, there are concerns of a large law suit because the officer was armed with pepper spray and a Taser, but failed to deploy those non lethal weapons or wait for backup before pulling and shooting his gun.
In reading the PT article from a few days ago, now removed from their site, Gene and his staff played an active role in confronting and detaining this drunk. As you stated, was he in fact in Legends consuming alcohol earlier that night? Was he being served in excess by Legends staff? Was he ejected from the business, leading to his hostility and irreverent acts?
A reasonable person would conclude that a prominent business owner, with a history of questionable dealings, would never get involved in such a provocative situation, unless (personally) involved or his business was a factor in this individuals' belligerent behavior.
Whatever the truth may be, one thing is for sure. Something smells extremely rotten here in the Shore.
www.californiainjurylawyersblog.com/2009/02/cit...
After the woman’s family sued the city, information not released to the public divulged the woman was NOT jay walking and also that the police car was traveling at a high rate of speed on a foggy morning WITHOUT its siren or flashing lights on. City Hall settled for over a $million. No public apology was made to the woman's family. After the facts came out, a lot of people changed their mind about the ridiculousness of that law suit.
I’m not pointing fingers at the police regarding this shooting. However, I AM saying all of the facts are not out yet. In fact, little detail has been provided by the police to the newspapers or public. There has been a tight lid clamped on everything related to this shooting. I’m not sure if that is usual for an officer involved shooting. However, I hope we don’t have to rely on a law suit to find out whether the facts provided are real.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6837872
By the way, you head looks really big on TV.
Sorry, you made fun of his head, kind of weak.
But Man..., are you whining like a guy with his twigs and berries in a vise? What's your animus here? Does the fact that there are two sides to every story cause you grave, personal disquiet of some sort? Sorry, this is America where Free and Fair Debate is an inalienable Fundamental Right for everybody including the unfairly singled out, and often maligned Mr Ruehle.
Many of us would not mind shaking his hand some day, nor helping him, and others build a few bridges.
Did you bother to notice how the PT has attempted to kill this story because the perp's family apparently has juice and the Lawyers are hovering around the case due to questions concerning the application, and escalation in the use of force here? This seems peculiar? In most towns there would be continuing coverage?This deeply chills some people who merely seek the truth while posing legitimate, fair questions.
And why was Sergeant John Greet quick to state that he basically 'feels sorry for the shooter'. Clearly he has a hard, trying road ahead, but this is part of the job, and he will get paid along the way, but we need to remain wholly objective here as to avoid to infer a predisposition to acquit anybody from the outset.. Hero or Zero, and most of us love the good cops on our PD, speaking about this matter needs to be done with extreme sensitivity to both sides of the gun here until we all learn the facts and can weigh them objectively?
It is not necessarily impossible to ultimately find that excessive force might have been used here, like it or not, and this premature sympathy can cause some of the posters, or citizens, to recoil. This is why.
Present company excluded, one of the posters here has been the most unfortunate witness to two excessive force situations, one which caused the literal, police beating death, by 6 uniformed Police Officers sadistically using their batons, upon an innocent, drunk, gay man who was summarily executed for being obnoxious, while in a drunk tank?
Another incident, which partially fuels his advocacy, nearly had him killed while in custody, for being accidentally in the wrong place, at the wrong time? They beat him unconscious, several times, cuffed him, drove him around in a police unit while crafting a plan to avoid culpability. He had to listen to an overheated rookie, state, ''We messed up, he is going to have our jobs, I am going to kill him and dump him in the river. Nobody can prove a thing'' Thankfully his older Supervisor talked him out of it. Can you imagine the scar to ones psyche as he is driven around the tough side of town for a few hours as his summary execution is debated?
One of these situations resulted in 7 figure Litigation, and thankfully both situations were not in this Jurisdiction, but one was right next door. There are a few bad cops, which stain the good name on the badge that they wear, and we need to be careful when we rush to judgment. We need to remember that some people are scarred, because they have seen too much, and they question authority partially due to wounds that never heal..
We will refrain from some of the local stories by one of the Best Criminal Defense Attorneys in this State, who can literally curl your hair with examples of Police Misconduct, and high profile resignations, in lieu of prosecution..
But back to the thrust of this article, when reviewing the hundreds of Blog comments here, and elsewhere, the perp is viewed as wholly at fault, this may be largely so, but there is little basis to rush to Judgment absent more facts, and how, when and where he became intoxicated cannot be ignored. Nor can the wild party atmosphere that he was apparently attracted into be prematurely adjudged wholly irrelevant.
There are Cause and Effect implications here which many seek to better understand..
One thing is for certain, there will be a Lawsuit, which will cost the City tons of money merely to defend, plus a potential award of monetary damages, payment of medical expenses, interrogatories and depositions of hundreds of potential witnesses, endless investigations, expert witnesses and so much more. At the end of the day, we can quite possibly point to the actual and proximate cause of this expenditure as being partially, or largely attributable to the Bars, pouring too much booze, too late, and further to the aggregate affect of 54 Liquor Licenses existing along a small strip of Commercial/Residential space.
According to most persons that we have reviewed this matter with, this area has grown too far away from how it was originally designed, master planned and built, and the buffer zones between the homes, and the nuisance uses have been obliterated due to the massive increase of patronage, over concentration of bars, lack of adequate parking, and inability for Police to provide adequate police presence due to financial constraints, and due to their service demand shifts.
This is all the evidence that most appear to need to conclude, that the BSBA has failed, miserably, at policing and regulating itself to the standards of the average resident . And that it just may be time for these residents to consider putting reasonable conditions upon their right to sell this huge volume of hard liquor going forward?
Clearly we need to enforce the rule of law, and the majority of residents appear pretty fed up with this growing appeal towards, and marketing to, and attraction of binge drinking trouble makers into a once nicer area.
This was unheard of in the 60s,70s,80s, and 90s?
But here is the next question...is Mr Ruehle's Character in issue here? Was he the Actual or Proximate Cause of anything related to this event? No. Even a remote cause? No. An affected Plaintiff who's residents have been harmed? YES.
The Character of the Bar Owners is in issue here, as is that of the oversight agencies. Similarly, the judgment of the Councilman and Mayor are in issue, according to what we keep hearing, from many sources?
So what is your point 'Cup'? Demonizing a duly elected Civic Leader and 2 term President of a highly respected Residents Association as if to deflect actual responsibility? To assail the apparently good character of a well meaning man, with ample courage, who has worked very hard, for not a dime, to attempt to maintain, or improve his communities quality of life? Does that bother you? If so, why? You might not like his style, or his methods, but we are all works in progress, and he appears, by in-large, to have good intentions. His appearance, head size and personality bears no arguable nexus to these events? In fact, to several, it is easy to imagine your head as being quite small.
All of this aside, he, or his members, are not on trial here.
Let's guess. A pecuniary interest of yours is involved, and you are either getting paid to play here, or stand to lose money somehow? Possibly both? So can we stipulate to some form of personal bias here?
Fine, let's Motion to Strike that testimony.
And what do you have to say about the testimony which has come forward apparently establishing that the perp here was apparently poured into oblivion here, while at Legend's, contrary to the owners statement in the PT, and not appropriately 'cut off' by his server, as has been the trend. So was it proper, if such is established, that he was then loosed upon the community,recklessly, as usual, to damage the real or personal property of the adjacent residents, imperil and Officer, and all of the rest?
We live in a Comparative Negligence State, do you seek to place 100% liability on the Defendant from drink one, to drink two,3,4,5,6,7,8, whatever, then to and through his exit, outburst, dumb dumb move, tussle,fight and the 3 gunshots? We are of no opinion here having not gleaned all of the facts but if you think in terms of the ultimate finding of fact by a Civil Jury, 4 or 5 years down the road, the Bar Owner, The Municipality, and the PD have some Legal Issues in front of them and will no doubt be named as Defendants.
Millions of dollars later, what is the true cost of such Nuisance Businesses? How does the Revenue that they generate justify this expense? Do you think that the Bar Owners are going to indemnify our Municipality? Heck no, they are largely in the business of exploiting every means imaginable to put cash in their own pocket and limit their costs at each and every corner.
Apparently the sweetheart deal loan that we, the residents, bestowed upon him has had the payments suspended? And this is a viable business entity? Or is it City Sponsored, subsidized Nuisance?
And if this moronic perp gets adjudged criminally culpable, and wholly liable, do you think that he has sufficient assets to repay the net expense to our City? This event has already probably cost our town 100,000 $... easy , and towards what end?
Next question; Do you believe in any accountability for the wide range of negative effects of a nuisance business' conduct has upon the Quality of Life of adjacent residents? Or are we basically living in the 'Wild West' here.. And shall the BSBA be adjudged wholly unaccountable again?
Horse dung.
So here is another question gleaned from the blogs around town, was the Bar Owner out there to trying to be a good citizen all of a sudden, or to actually attempt to personally smooth this guy out in order to protect his Liquor License? Attempting to cover the incident up possibly? Since when has this vendor played personal perimeter security for the neighborhood? Never to our knowledge. Something really stinks here.
And Mr Greet, who has his friends, and his foes, and who serves in a difficult, life threatening job honorably, most state, has somehow become quiet as a church mouse alll of a sudden? Why ? Why here? He works this beat? The men he helps supervise may have been involved? What is that all about?
Let's avoid the matter pending if we must, and ask Mr Greet, and others, to attempt to build some bridges here, and debate some solutions based upon re-assignments, productivity enhancements,re-use of existing Police and Resident resources, and more.
Let's ask Mr Greet, politely, to pose some Constructive solutions here which do not require further funding. Let's use some ingenuity and think outside of the box a bit.
We have spoken to a lot of people about this shameful situation, some opine; Let's get Neighborhood Watch up and running again? Let's explore a COPS ( Citizens On Patrol) Program, let's consider some things that other adjacent Jurisdictions like Seal Beach have, like police units, with ''Volunter Police ''painted on the passenger doors, and trained residents out gathering Probable Cause when and were needed?
We have all of the unused Police Units sitting at the East Division sub station, designate 2 or 3 for the shore, repaint the door, and cut a half dozen Mike Ruehle types loose at night, to help be the residents, and the PD's 'Eyes and Ears' and see how many thugs get video taped, questioned,detained for an official investigation, cited, booked, etc.?
Of course such thoughts would be heresy to some, and a job threat to others, but something has to change, and the excuses, and strained explanations about what we can't do and what we can't afford are wearing painfully thin??
The easiest, most cost effective thing is a simple Midnight curfew, and strict ABC oversight, and un-announced, unknown to the club , Plain Clothes monitoring of the high volume bars that most claim pour way, way too much liquor these days, and which fail to provide adequate safegaurds and perimeter security.
The City of Long Beach just may have culpability here too, for allowing too many bars, in too small a space. The Burdens clearly outweigh the Benefits to a majority of residents, most say.
There is what many might assert is arguable Negligence Liability all over the place here too, so let's take steps in the direction of mitigating past, present or prospective harm, fault and monetary damages.
To many, the question is to what extent have these Bars been mismanaged? And why the quantity of liquor licenses, and volume of alcohol sales is so high, per capita, in this small, primarily residential area?
The stores, shops and restaurants are the attractive draw, the bars are the trouble source.
Your assertion that we should remain “wholly objective” is quite accurate and the comments I made in “The Legend of Belmont Shore Bar Problems Grows” addressed this point precisely:
~~
“I'm very pleased to note that several readers desire more facts about this incident before presuming to pass judgment one way or another. Determining *all* of these facts will take some time and I trust these readers, and others, will be willing to be patient as concurrent investigations proceed...The officer involved has a very tough time ahead and I hope readers will remain, if not fully supportive, at least understanding and patient as those charged with investigating this incident and evaluating the officer's actions proceed with their own very difficult jobs.”
~~
I hope you will agree that one can be sympathetic of a persons’ situation without arriving at a conclusion, one way or another, concerning the circumstances. I am likewlise sympathetic toward anyone who is shot, regardless of who shot them. I'm told that being shot is not a pleasant experience and I sincerely hope the person shot by the officer on 2nd Street achieves a full recovery, regardless of the remainder of the circumstances.
I hope that you would also agree that, pending the conclusion of concurrent investigations, our police officers deserve their community’s full support following such difficult incidents unless/until such time as the investigations prove they are not deserving of such?
I have been relatively quiet concerning this incident because I am not possessed of all of the facts surrounding it and, unlike many others here, am not inclined to either condemn or exonerate the officer involved until such time as I have them. Speculation serves no constructive purpose -for anyone involved- and even if I were thus inclined some would surely misconstrue any personal comments I make as official statements from my Department, despite that I routinely make it clear that, unless I specify otherwise, I do not speak for my Department on such matters. No one speaks for my Department but the Chief of Police, and whomever else he may delegates that authority to.
The best sources for official statements from my Department are quotes from employees authorized to speak on behalf of our Chief and the various Press Releases issued by our Community Relations Division. These releases are, in all cases, official comments that have either been issued or otherwise authorized by our Chief of Police or another with sufficient authority.
I feel completely comfortable commenting, here and elsewhere, on general issues that relate to law enforcement generally or to my Department specifically and am happy to answer such general questions just as I would be were I in the field and was waved over and asked such a question by any resident or businessperson of or visitor to our fine city. The comments I have so far made concerning this incident were offered solely in that spirit. If you, or others, have general questions for me I’ll certainly attempt to answer them if I can. If I cannot, I will gladly refer you to those who can.
If you have truly been paying attention to my comments you will know that I have, indeed, been offering “some Constructive solutions here which do not require further funding…us(ing) some ingenuity and think(ing) outside of the box…” I won’t recount these proposed solutions now but a simple review of my various comments will prove my assertion true. Disqus can prove invaluable with this sort of research.
A big head indicates high intelligence.
After the Council meeting, I sent the below emails to the Mayor, City Council, City Attorney and the Police department highlighting the problems experienced by residents nightly. Other than the City Attorney confirming receipt of their email, I RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM CITY HALL. I’m sure the delete button was alive and well in City Hall. How ironic that Belmont Shore then had a shooting on May 28th.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ruehle
To: Mayor Foster;Suja Lowenthal;Patrick O'Donnell;district1@longbeach.gov;Gerrie Schipske;Tonia Reyes Uranga;Val Lerch;Rae Gabelich;Dee Andrews
Cc: Gary DeLong; Commander Renaud
Sent: 5/19/2009 11:28:02 PM
Subject: Belmont Shore Police Needed
Hello Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Below I have attached youtube links to some of the public disturbances that were recorded by residents in our Belmont Shore Community over the past couple weeks. These issues happen every weekend and are not something our family's and children should be subjected to. After a major blow-up, Belmont Shore receives short term help from the police in the way of additional overtime staffing. However, that only lasts for a short time. The result is residents quality of life is being diminished by the proliferation of over served bar patrons as are our property values. Why must this continue? Why must city council continue to issues alcohol licenses and entertainment permits in Belmont Shore without providing the police enforcement necessary to ensure the safety and quality of life of its residents?
There are 54 businesses in Belmont Shore that have alcohol licenses. Most of these businesses close by 11:00 pm. It is the handful of bars that stay open beyond 11:00 pm whose patrons cause the majority of public disturbances. These bars need a higher level of policing. Therefore, I recommend the City of Long Beach annual business license fee be increased $10,000 per year for those bar and restaurants wishing to remain open and selling alcoholic beverages beyond 11:00 pm. Currently, there is only one police officer in all of beat 10 which extends from Seal Beach to Bluff Park. The increased business license fee should provide money to dedicate an additional police officer to Belmont Shore for policing of late night disturbances caused by over served patrons.
Public Urination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ICX28cVaG4
Front Yard Fight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPHGcoiJrXM
Respectfully,
Mike Ruehle
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ruehle
To: Mayor Foster;Suja Lowenthal;Patrick O'Donnell;district1@longbeach.gov;Gerrie Schipske;Tonia Reyes Uranga;Val Lerch;Rae Gabelich;Dee Andrews
Cc: Gary DeLong; anthony_Batts@longbeach.gov; Michael Mais; Heather Mahood; City Attorney; City Prosecutor
Sent: 5/24/2009 4:46:24 PM
Subject: RE: Belmont Shore Police Needed
Hello Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Below is the third Belmont Shore public disturbance video recently posted on The District Weekly. Residents and their children living less than 100 feet from the bars are subjected to this type of activity nightly. There is ONLY ONE police officer assigned during bar closing hours in all of beat ten which extends from Seal Beach to District 2. That is why there are no disturbances being reported by the police. How can a disturbance be reported if there are no police? I ask you again to please consider ways of increasing policing of problem bars and the suggestion I made below. It's just a matter of time before a serious incident causes a public uproar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPgaj2KrV6M
Mike Ruehle
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I do think it is important for you to hear this perspective however. Anyway, you said you would get the people who heard directly to post or comment on this. I would love to see that information.
On another note, lbreport posted the criminal's name. Ernest Raymond Rodriguez. Is his father "somebody" as you posted earlier? I do not know but I guess we'll find out shortly.
When I post something, it is because I believe it to credible even though I may not always have the first-hand proof myself. If you look at what I posted, I preceeded what I wrote with "I have been told." As far as I know, my previous statement has not been proven false.
I pose to Councilman DeLong to deny his discussions about turning 2nd street into an entertainment district. How come Councilman DeLong never posts under his real name to set the record straight? Councilwoman Schipske frequently does so. Furthermore, Councilman DeLong certainly has the time to do so because he has no problem posting under his anonymous names Kathi4LB and PatBryant when he thinks nobody knows who he is.
Your quote was "This also makes it more difficult for Councilman DeLong to accomplish his frequently spoken about goal of turning Belmont Shore into an ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT for his commercial property owner friends who can charge twice as much rent for a bar/restaurant than they can get for a retail store."
I missed the part about you saying "i have been told".
I don't want to argue about it. I'm not even disputign whether it's true or not. I'm just saying there is a difference between hearsay and you explaining what you have heard directly. it would be nice to know what type of info we're getting.
Are you aware that Councilman DeLong utilized his position to attempt to influence the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA) election on September 11, 2008? Below is the email Councilman DeLong sent to each Belmont Shore resident the morning of the election except for the current BSRA board (my later response is included). Furthermore, Councilman DeLong appeared at the BSRA election and told residents to not vote for the incumbent BSRA board. Moreover, Councilman DeLong was videotaped handing out voting cards for the candidates promoted by Business Association President Gene Rotondo. Fortunately for residents, Councilman DeLong was unsuccessful and the incumbent BSRA board was returned for a second year. When you say, “it's still unclear to me whether the BSRA is excelling on their end,” are you saying Councilman DeLong is striving for a partnership at his end? That certainly is not what we have seen.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ruehle
To: Mike Ruehle
Cc: Mayor Foster; Bonnie Lowenthal; Suja Lowenthal; Gary DeLong; Patrick O'Donnell; Tonia Reyes Uranga; Dee Andrews; Gerrie Schipske; Rae Gabelich; Val Lerch; Ryan ZumMallen; steveatthedistrictweekly.com; Dave Welenga; LA Times; OC Register; Joe Segura at PT; Kurt Helin; Neighborhoods First; LBReport; Anne Cramer; Julie Maleki; Julia Sylva
Sent: 9/15/2008 4:59:46 PM
Subject: Councilman DeLong Letter to Residents
Hello Fellow Belmont Shore Residents,
On the morning of the Belmont Shore Resident's Association (BSRA) election, Councilman DeLong emailed all residents and Business Owners in Belmont Shore the below "inflammatory" email. It was forwarded to me by a friend because the BSRA Board was not included on the distribution. Councilman DeLong’s email claims several things that I believe are untrue. I feel it is necessary to set the record straight.
I have responded in (parenthesis) after each of the examples that Councilman DeLong has provided. Furthermore, I have attached a zip file of a Microsoft Word document containing 45 pages of emails in support of my arguments. If you have questions on any of this, please do not hesitate to email me or give me a call.
Mike Ruehle
BSRA President
*****************************************
From: Gary DeLong [mailto:GDeLong@rtpgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: BSRA Election
Over the past year I have read Mike Ruehle's (BSRA President) monthly newsletters and observed inflammatory and generally inaccurate information on a regular basis. In the beginning I brought the inaccuracies to his attention, but it quickly became apparent that he was on a mission to attack the individual or organization that he was writing about and did not want to be persuaded otherwise. Accordingly, I have found it impossible to work with Mike when he disparages me on a monthly basis.
This month's newsletter is no exception.
I have been approached over the past year by many Belmont Shore residents seeking clarification. After providing them with the correct information, they have asked why I don't respond directly to Mike's unfounded accusations against me and/or City staff. He has misrepresented our Parks, Recreation and Marine Dept, Police Department, City Attorney's office, Gas Department, Planning Commission, Council Office, etc. I have always hoped that Mike would become more reasonable once he learned that City staff was really trying to do their best, and even though we all might not agree, individuals were sincere in their desire to do what is best for the greater community.
In Mike's recent (September 8th) monthly email, he is at it again. Following are several examples:
1. "The BSRA zone committee negotiated four Belmont Shore zoning changes."
This is incorrect. The four changes were recommended by City staff. All of the changes recommended by the BSRA committee were voted down by the public in a meeting at Lowell Elementary.
(The BSRA Zoning Committee has been working with city Planning staff for over a year on this issue. Please find copies of 33 email (pages 1-17) discussions of this subject between the BSRA and city planning staff in the attached file. The emails are listed in chronological order and begin on 8/14/07. Please note that Councilman DeLong was copied on many of these emails. The BSRA surveyed residents on 2/1/08 about 11 proposed zoning code changes (email summary attached). 5 of the 11 code changes proposed by the BSRA were approved by residents attending a public meeting at Lowell Elementary school on 4/21/08 (email summary attached). Councilman DeLong’s implication that the BSRA was not involved in this process and that “all of the changes recommended by the BSRA committee were voted down” is absurd.)
2. "BSRA is working with the City to install stoplight diffusers."
The BSRA is not involved in this project.
(The BSRA has been working with city Traffic Engineer, Dave Roseman since 10/5/08 on this issue. Please find copies of 8 emails (pages 18-32), listed in chronological order, between Mr. Roseman and the BSRA. Please note that Councilman DeLong was copied on many of these emails. For Councilman DeLong to explicitly say that the BSRA was not involved in this process is ridiculous.)
3. "The BSRA worked with the City to have excessive red curbing removed."
This issue was addressed by one of my Council staff in response to a request from a Belmont Shore resident not affiliated with the BSRA.
(Number 3 and number 2 above were both addressed by the BSRA at the same time with City Traffic Engineer, Dave Roseman. The same 7 emails (pages 18-32) address this issue. In addition, Anne Cramer from Councilman DeLong’s office worked with BSRA Boardmember Marvin Jones to resolve this issue. For Councilman DeLong to explicitly say that this issue was addressed “in response to a request from a Belmont Shore resident not affiliated with the BSRA” is stretching the truth.)
4. "The BSRA monitors Belmont Shore crime statistics and met with the Police Chief and City Manager."
As a result of Mike Ruehle misrepresenting the Belmont Shore crime statistics to the Press Telegram, City management met with him to see if they could improve the relationship between Mike and City Hall.
(I am hoping that Councilman DeLong will explain what crime statistics I misrepresented to the Press Telegram. It is too easy to say that I misrepresented something without providing a clear definition. The crime statistics are hard data that should be easy to substantiate and determine whether Councilman DeLong is correct.)
5. Water Pollution "Mike's email states that Long Beach has 57% of the beach closures in California. Further, he states there were 31 raw sewage spills into the bay.
Of the 31 spills, only 2 were in Long Beach, vandalism at a Marine Stadium restroom and a grease plug in a neighborhood sewer.
(My discussion of this issue in my September BSRA Newsletter is copied on page 38 of the attached document. My newsletter stated “an August 14th article in the LA Times (second link below) quotes Nelson Kerr, recreational water manager of the city of Long Beach, as saying, “Long Beach has been hit by 31 sewage spills since January, four of them serious enough to close beaches.” The newsletter also provides the below link to the newspaper article so people can read the articles themselves if they don't believe me. To my knowledge all of the 31 sewage spills into the Los Angeles River end up in the bay. Where else can it go?)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sewage1...
6. Air Pollution: Councilman DeLong has been negotiating In Washington, D.C. for the Port to receive pollution mitigation credits.
There is no such thing as a "pollution mitigation credit". What I have been working on is to modify existing guidelines so the Port of Long Beach can provide funding for the restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. In the past the Port has been able to fund Wetlands restoration in the San Diego area and at Bolsa Chica. It is clear to me that the community would like to see the Los Cerritos Wetlands restored.
(I added the word “pollution” to the term “mitigation credit.” Let me explain why. The Port of Long Beach (POLB) is prevented by the government from further expansion by filling in submerged and nesting habitat in San Pedro Harbor. In the past, the POLB has got around this by restoring habitat in other locations to offset the habitat destruction caused by POLB’s expansions. This transfer of habitat destruction and restoration is considered a mitigation credit. The resulting POLB expansions utilizing mitigation credits significantly increased Long Beach’s air pollution. If the POLB continues to expand by utilizing mitigation credits, additional POLB air pollution will be generated. Thus, the word “pollution” was added to the term “mitigation credit.”
I certainly support restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetlands as I stated in my newsletter. However, I think it is important that Long Beach residents know it will come with increased air pollution from further expansion of the POLB. Councilman DeLong fails to mention that technicality or that other, non-polluting methods of restoring the Los Cerritos wetlands may be available in the future.)
7. Councilman DeLong and his wife signed up to vote as members of the BSRA. Do you think these folks will be voting for the current board?
Yes, I renewed a previous membership in the BSRA, and it is true I will not be voting for Mike Ruehle. I believe his campaign of disinformation to local residents is harmful to the Belmont Shore community.
(I admit that I am human and make mistakes. When a mistake is brought to my attention, I will print a retraction in my newsletters. I believe a lot of what Councilman DeLong considers disinformation and inaccuracies can easily be done away with if only he would agree to periodically meet or talk with me about resident issues. So far, he has refused to do so. However, I'm hoping the re-election will improve our chances of open communication in the future.)
We have the opportunity for the City to invest in many great projects that will improve the quality of life in the Belmont Shore community. But, in order for these projects to come to fruition, it is necessary to have a neighborhood association that builds consensus in the community and reflects the overall perspective of Belmont Shore residents.
Unfortunately, the Belmont Shore Residents Association does not currently appear to represent the majority opinion of Belmont Shore residents, so it lacks credibility and results in the Belmont Shore community being underserved.
I believe new leadership at the BSRA can deliver great results in the Shore.
Thank you for the support of the Belmont Shore community, and I will continue to work hard on your behalf, regardless of the outcome of tonight's elections.
GaryDeLong
Councilmember, 3rd District
562/961-4105
I also forgot to mention Councilman DeLong wrote an article in the Grunion Gazette that was published the morning of the BSRA election which was hypercritical of the BSRA and I, and urged residents to vote for the Business Association candidates. Is that what you want from your elected Councilman? Do you want him to use his position to influence residents association elections and ban those who question him on decisions he makes that impacts residents in my neighborhood?
Also, interesting about Mr. Jordan’s recent selection as Councilman DeLong’s BSRA representative is that Mr. Jordan recently became a 2nd street businessman himself with the opening of his new business on 2nd street. Most people would want Mr. Jordan to recuse himself from being the BSRA representative for discussions on bar patron public disturbance issues due to this conflict of interest. I don’t know. What do you think?
Also, interesting about Mr. Jordan’s recent selection as Councilman DeLong’s BSRA representative is that Councilman DeLong selected Larry Jordan last September to be the sole BSRA representative for Councilman DeLong's lame attempt to mediate discussions with the Business Association. However, the BSRA SELECTED three other representatives. That's probably why the mediated meetings didn't work out.
Even more ARROGANT is Councilman DeLong’s email response to BSRA Vice President Terry Endersen who asked Councilman DeLong to be included in the June 10, 2009 meeting with residents impacted by bar patron public disturbances. His exact question to Councilman DeLong was, “Gary, How does someone get invited to this meeting?” From Councilman DeLong’s response below, it is apparent that not only am I banned from attending this meeting, but Councilman DeLong also chooses to not invite Mr. Endersen to the meeting. I guess that is one way of making sure you have nobody in the room who has heard Councilman DeLong’s past promises and might not necessarily agree with him.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Endersen
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:47 PM
To: Gary DeLong
Cc: 'Larry Jordan'; 'Aileen Colon'; 'Charles Folks'; 'Jim Lazarus'; 'John Forstrom'; 'Marvin Jones'; 'Mike Ruehle'; 'Tim clark; 'VanHorn, Christopher'
Subject: RE: Meeting with Gary DeLong et al
Gary,
How does someone get invited to this meeting?
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary DeLong
To: Terry Endersen
Cc: Larry Jordan; Aileen Colon; Charles Folks; Jim Lazarus; John Forstrom; Marvin Jones; Mike Ruehle; Tim clark; VanHorn, Christopher
Sent: 6/1/2009 10:19:26 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting with Gary DeLong et al
Larry Jordan has contacted me several times over the last few months sharing his concerns regarding the "after-hours" environment on 2nd Street.
However, not only has Larry expressed concerns, but he has also suggested possible solutions to the problem(s), which I greatly appreciate. Additionally, he impresses me as a person who is creative and thinks "outside the box". I have been told by long-time Belmont Shore residents that 2nd Street issues have existed for many years. Accordingly, it is helpful to have someone like Larry as part of a team to develop potential solutions. I also believe Larry has the skills to work with me to build the consensus needed to implement positive change in the Shore.
As I work through the process, I'll include the City Attorney's office (whom I met with earlier today), the Development Services Dept, Zoning, Business Licensing, Vice and other City entities as appropriate. I have met with each of these departments in the last several weeks, and will continue to work with them. I'll also continue to reach out to individual residents and business owners to discuss their concerns and potential solutions. And finally, I spent time on 2nd Street last Saturday evening after midnight to see for myself what is going on, and I'll continue to monitor the situation until the issues are addressed.
I'd also like to mention that John Forstrom has worked with the Council Office and City staff to address several problems on 2nd Street, and I appreciate his efforts as well.
If the problem was easy to fix, it would have been done a long time ago.
In the meanwhile, if you (or any other BSRA board member) have any specific recommendations that you would like to see considered, please let me know.
Gary DeLong
Councilmember
City of Long Beach
562/961-4105
so if you want to run for office, go for it. Until then, for the benefit and good of shore residents I think you need to find a way to foster a relationship with the bsra and the council office. If that means letting someone else take the leadership role, so be it. It may not be fair, but it's selfish to continue fighting this battle with delong. because right now you're getting nowhere, the Shore is getting nowhere, AND THERE ARE SOME VERY VALID CONCERNS THAT NEED BE ADDRESSED.
he has the power because the residents voted him in. The problems may be 100% delongs fault. And if enough people think delong is the problem, then you'll be the new councilman in a year.
The thought of going another year with this he said / she said crap is really frustrating. It's annoying and worse nothing gets solved in the shore.
Are we in pre World War 2 Germany here attempting to engineer a 'Beer Hall Putsch' for 'Heir Furor ' or something?
So you guys think that the Residents, and their duly elected Officers need to come crawling to you as if some putative King has the latitude to approve or disapprove of those serfs which he does, or does not 'find favor' with?
Has Long Beach become a 'Police State' recently? Is this America? Democracy?
Is the Mayor going to tolerate having any voice muzzled in this town? Is this kind of censorship acceptable to a candidate that we elected in 2006 so that ALL people would have a seat at the table? So that ALL people would have a fair shot ? Especially those have been denied access, representation, and a chance to be adequately heard?
This is an egregious Prior Restraint upon Lawful Free Speech Rights. This is a hideous attempt to shape the debate by silencing those who you do not have the courage and strength , or intellectual integrity to listen to.
Better yet, do you think that this exercise in futility is lawful? Or is it wholly incendiary? Actionable? Provocatory? Putrid ? Adding fuel to a fire which has spread far too far, and far too long ?
Prior Councilpersons would never attempt to limit a Public Forum in such an arbitrary and capricious manner? Not Jan Hall, Not Doug Drummond, not Frank Colonna, nor any other fair minded Councilperson in most other Districts. There is no legitimate precedent for such 'star chambers' here in Long Beach ?
Any legitimate meeting, considering a Public Nuisance, and a Community set of concerns, needs to be held with fair notice, open to all, conducted fairly , and on the record, or don't be shocked to see Attorneys at this meeting, or elsewhere, along with the Media, and demonstrators once again.
The Councilman is a PUBLIC SERVANT, not a Private Liaison for certain friends on the BSBA or elsewhere.
Public Servants get paid to listen to ALL of us, but if their skin is so thin that they can not 'bear' to 'suffer' honest questions, or take legitimate criticism, they are in the wrong buisiness, and basically unfit for service.
Public Service is not a Country Club where some 'fancy pants' committee gets to give a thumbs up, or down to who comes into the clubhouse for tea.
Democracy dies every time that ANY voice is muzzled.
We'll be contacting friends well up in the ACLU, today. Please feel free to join us in expressing your concerns to the appropriate entities or individuals.
Such conduct is also an affront to our Mayor's connection to those in the Civil Liberties Community who champion the Procedural and Substantive Due Process rights of all men and women, and the Equal Protection under all laws that MOST consider Fundamental Freedoms and Inalienable Rights.
He needs to intervene here and stand up against this discriminatory 'private club' mentality, act like a fair minded father figure towards all, and stand up for fundamental fairness, free and fair debate, access, and equity?
Many would hope to belive that he has been out of the loop on this matter thus far, and will get invloved, and do the right thing. This matter is clearly upon his desk now and many of his friends would be shocked to see him look the other way given such reprehensible misconduct.
This entire matter is making him look bad and he has to have a hard talk with his politically naive protege . This is becoming yet another LA Times, mainstream media embarrassment.
This is not an issue of personalities as you appear to suggest. This is an issue where I choose to be dedicated to preserving the quality of life for residents in my community. Anyone having the same commitment would also be marginalized by Councilman DeLong. Unfortunately, some quality of life issues are in conflict with what Councilman DeLong wants for our Belmont Shore community. Unlike Councilman DeLong’s self serving decisions for him and his buddies, I spend a significant amount of time surveying and talking with resident to find out how they want me to represent them. What residents want for our community is not what Councilman DeLong and his buddies want for our community. I will not step out of the way to allow that to happen.
It appears you are suggesting I step aside to let the other pro-business regime return to the BSRA. That’s not going to happen. Councilman DeLong already did his best to boot me from the BSRA and the residents showed their preference by voting the entire BSRA board back. I will not betray their commitment to me. I will not step aside because you or any other DeLong, Lorbeer, Rotondo or Schneiter supporter says so. If necessary, I will continue to draw attention to these matters by being outspoken before city council and seeking assistance from the media.
The problems are not with me. The problems lie with Councilman DeLong and the special interests he supports for his personal friends. Him and his cronies are bad guys. I’m not going away.
What makes you think that working closely with Mr. DeLong will get you anywhere? There are over a dozen residents in Belmont Shore that on an ongoing basis have expressed increasing levels of concern about the type of crowd and the actions of the crowd being attracted to 2nd St. late at night.
Mr. Delong ignored all of us until videos were posted online (more police were visible within a week), the police shot Mr Rodriquez 3 times and the subsequent channel 2 and 7 news stories.
Is it possible that Mr. Ruehle's attitude toward working with Mr. Delong comes from a sense that he knows it won't make a difference if they work 'together' or not. Even though we worked 'together' with Mr. Delong, he was eventually forced into taking action by the residents.
If you don't like the fight, then don't pay attention because that is the only way anything gets accomplished with our current councilmember. And just waiting around until next April's election is not a viable option.
I think it is imperative that shore residents continue to push delong to make some adjustments, but doing so with Mike as the face gives delong the excuse to ignore the feedback.
Experience tells most of us that have been involved that working with or against Delong you get the same outcome....nothing.
Well, said, lbresident.
I'm glad you posted well, said, because what he well, said, IS pathetic.
You two related?
"You people knew there were bars on 2nd Street when you bought your homes nearby. So shut up and enjoy the drunkards! You have no right to restrict the number of bars on 2nd Street, they create jobs in the city! How dare you protect your quality of life."
Asinine, isn't it. Try hearing every time you suggest the airport stay small.
I plan to respond to Mr. Saltzavers questions later today and post them if space permits.
It is unfortunate that it took a police shooting and near death to finally cause Commander Renaud, Councilman DeLong and Mayor Foster to finally respond to residents concerns about the problems occuring in our neighborhood. Previous requests for help were totally ignored by all three. It only took 16-months, an officer involved shooting, a murder and a slit throat to get their attention.
So how long will it last? How much money is now being spent on police resources to control the bar disturbances allowed and condoned by Councilman DeLong and Mayor Foster? Does the sales tax revenue from these problem bars justify the money spent on the additional police resources necessary to protect our neighborhood? What do you think?
Mike Ruehle's honest and diligent method of speaking out about problems and solutions are already having a productive impact on all of Long Beach. Mike Ruehle embodies the new American spirit that is sweeping our city and nation.
This is not factual, Mr. Ruehle, and I think you are well aware that it is not. The City employees you mention have, indeed, been responding to residents' concerns about these problems, you're just not particularly happy with the response these employees have offered.
You have, indeed, had the attention of the City employees you mentioned, you just don't like attention you've been getting.
Do you truly believe either of the City employees you mentioned "allowed and condoned" these bar disturbances? Truly? Neither of them is responsible for the individual acts of bar patrons or for deploying law enforcement resources so how, pray tell, did they allow these disturbances?
Have either of them made any statement indicating that they condone such behavior? If not, then on what do you base your assertion that they do cndone them?
I wonder if occurs to you to wonder how much sooner all or even some of the resources you've described might have been made available to your neighborhood had you simply adopted more constructive approaches in requesting them?
I wonder if it occurs to you to wonder what Beats or neighborhoods elsewhere in the City were depleted of these precious, finite and costly resources and, thus, deprived of this crucial police presence, to be able to concentrate so heavily on 2nd Street last night?
I wonder if it even *occurs* to you to be appreciative of the heavy police deployment you described and to properly express that appreciation to those present an to those responsible for helping to make it happen?
Or, as seems abundantly clear, are you too busy continuing to insult, and chastise and belittle them to offer even the slightest, most minimal and simplest "thank you"?
It's time for the Sherrif to come to Long Beach if your attitude is prevalent in the LBPD.
In the last 3 years the Long Beach Police Department and city staff recommended 6 more alcohol licenses, entertainment permits with no conditions, and 2 am hours until 2 am in an area that is saturated with over 50 bars/restaurants. The PD knew there was no parking (the new bar/restaurant alcohol permits violated existing parking zoning ordinances) and bar patrons would park in adjacent residential neighborhood.
All this was done despite pleas for help in controlling the existing drunks, parking, and crime problems.
And the city gives these business owners nearly 1 million dollars in public funds subsidies and a $500,000 buddy loan to a bar owner even though they were operating the BIA and Parking Commission in violation of the Brown Act and City Ethics code. Does this seem fair to you?
I simply and respectfully request that when one is so quick to insult, chastise and belittle our public employees for not doing something, that they be just as quick to show even a minimum amount of appreciation when they actually do it.
Believe it or not, RJ, the police "do their job" everywhere in this city, including on 2nd Street, every single day and night, though you seem reluctant to recognize that. When you do *your* job (assuming you're employed), do you not appreciate being thanked on occasion, especially when some seem so anxious to point out when they feel you are not?
Why would you request to be thanked for performing as you should?
Also, since Character Attacks are the new order of the day around town, ask yourself who has been mired in all of these controversies, and married more than once, then go pull a few Divorce Pleadings for us too. Remember the term 'Spousal Abuse', 'Mental Cruelty', and 'Infidelity'.
He who casts the first stone....had better come to play.
Also, please remember, this is a wide open site, and a protected Free Speech Forum, which thankfully is not subject to that confining little 3 minute ruke downtown. Many have to survive a " Trial By Ordeal' here.
Next, please, put the shoe on the other foot. How would you have to be put through the ringer like many Resident Centered Community Leaders in this town have year in, and year out?
We do not have a Police Protection League to run to. Too often, we get run out of the door. But we always come back, stealed with increased resolve. We never cry Uncle, and we always get up to fight another day. Every day. And not due to zealotry, rather, Equity.
Have you ever been placed in the unenviable position to have to be Denied Free Speech, Denied Procedural and Substantive Due Process, Marginalized, Smeared, Slandered and Libeled repeatedly, and then backed into the corner for so long, that you are left with no choice but to 'fight City Hall' or File Lawsuits at times? It can make you a really mean at times, and a tenacious ''Son of a Bitch'' at others, however many see the Love for thy Neighbor, Fairness and Justice behind it all.
Towns like this are better form such dedication, compassion, integrity and zeal. Some are designed for such advocacy. They thrive upon it.
As you know, Democracy can be messy at times, as can be Justice.
Try it some day, it is quite an education. It builds a special kind of Character. Some gain appreciation for the saying that : '' That which does not kill you, makes you stronger''.
The perspective gained makes you a better advocate. This is why many appreciate people like Mr Ruehle and others. They are an essential part of our Checks and Balances. This is Democracy down on the ground level, where it can matter most.
The Residents and their Advocate's are not going anywhere, in fact, they have never been stronger or better funded. Also, we are Lawyered up to the Gills, which never hurts. We don't get paid to play either Mr Greet. WE pay to play, and do our best, for our friends, our beloved City, or Coastline , our poor, our sick, our elderly, the little guy, our neighbors, and ALL of our fellow citizens, simply in the name of what is hopefully right, fair, just and appropriate.
No paycheck, no Pension, no lifetime Heathcare, no Paid Vacations, No plush Seminars, limited Power, unless we are holding a Legal Judgment or Ruling in our hand much of the time....but most assuredly, no sniveling.
This bar culture pushed by Delong and Rotondo for years. If you think that there is no connection between more and more wide open bars and the problems flowing out of the bars, it seems to me that you indeed have missed the largest part of the problem. No amount of policing will stop the problems created by more bars, more liquor licenses and more merger of bars and the sidewalk.
I understand your assertion of Mr. DeLong's complicity in the creation of a bar culture along 2nd Street. I have not seen the loan docs you mention but regardless of how they were worded or how strongly Mr. DeLong may have endorsed them, can you tell me who, specifically, provided final approval for the loan you mention? Did Mr. DeLong authorize this half million-dollar loan to Mr. Rotondo entirely on his own? Or did it require the full Council's approval? If so, which Council members approved the loan and which did not?
Clearly there is a direct nexus between the number of liquor licenses issued in an area and the number of alcohol-related public nuisance crimes that occur. I never denied this but, again, who approves these licenses? If I’m not mistaken, liquor licenses are issued by the State, not the City.
The City issues business licenses and the licensing process as well as any conditional use permits is lengthy and difficult. PD and several other Departments have their input, certainly, but again the full Council must ultimately approve them does it not?
I fully understand that many, at least many HERE, take great issue with the manner in which Mr. DeLong is representing his District or at least a portion of his District, but there is a *Constitutional* recourse for such a challenge is there not? Why have we not seen any effort to recall him? If he is truly guilty of everything alleged here; if his representation is truly that abysmal, then why have those making these allegations not exercised their right of recall under Article 20, Sec 2000 of our City Charter? Why resort to invective and insult and how is doing so to any degree productive?
Clearly those posting here, and elsewhere, have every right to express their views in the public forum, just as you and I do, and speech, most *especially* political speech is, indeed Constitutionally protected. But why, sir, if Mr. DeLong is really as bad as some allege, do they not simply avail themselves of their rights under the law and attempt to remove him?
This loan wa a campaign assurance of DeLong and one of his first pieces of business. In most jurisdictions, you have to open your books and prove actual financial hardship and economic necessity. This never happened.
The key is that they quietly arranged for this loan to be forgivable. This is how this town quietly grants a gift of Public Funds to their favorite sons, quitly one night, on the consent calendar.
What is even more reprehensible, is that the loan payments were apparently suspended recently on a further claim of hardship..LOL..so he could free up cash to buy another bar !!
This another dirty deal to many. Where is our 500,000$ Gift ? And you wonder why your resources are strained?
How about the 'Unjust Desserts' scandal Dave broken here recently? Another potential Million Dollar gift to a 'buddy'.
It has gotten to the point where many feel that all of these huge gifts would not be coming Mr Dean's way unless he had some really juicy dirt on a person or two? Who knows, but this continues to look worse and worse at times.
Put down the pen a little bit, and help us investigate a range of disturbing Conflicts of Interest, Breaches of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence,Deriliction of Duty,Fraud, Misrepresentation and the true Motive those seeking to bequeath, or receive, wide ranging unjust enrichment?
Maybe it is all a mistake. Maybe some of it is incompetence . Maybe we have had bad results from good intentions, maybe this is Political, maybe it is not, but most certainly, there are a lot of interesting questions, and far too few answers.
The Public Service Yard is worth about twice what they sought to trade it for? A 34 Million dollar Wetlands purchse, which is now worth maybe 25-28 Million, including the Oil, is being pieced out for a 4,5, maybe 6 time profit?
Nobody is going to get away with ripping off the State, the City and our Coastline that easy around here. See you in Court, for years.
We need a Jan Hall type councilperson again too.
I am very wary of this meeting for several reasons. First, Larry Jordan has told several residents, including myself that COUNCILMAN DELONG told him he wishes to turn 2nd street into an ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT for his problem bar owner buddies that also control the Business Association. We all see how not so wonderful Pine Avenue has been decimated of its service and retails stores since turning it into an ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
Second, rather than conduct a public meeting to discuss this issue, COUNCILMAN DELONG chooses to hold another one of his SECRET MEETINGS that includes hand picked people assured to agree with and support his every decisions. Why else would COUNCILMAN DELONG exclude other concerned residents and BSRA Boardmembers who have contacted him to be allowed to attend this meeting?
Third, COUNCILMAN DELONG may again use this opportunity to help his 2nd street business buddies who created this problem in the first place. As mentioned in his KNBC news interview, COUNCILMAN DELONG is interested in imposing restrictions on future 2nd street bar businesses rather than restricting the current problem bars. This does nothing more than reward the problem bars by limiting their competition.
I want to thank the Police Department for increasing their patrols of 2nd street at bar closing time. It has made a marked change in only one week. I estimate there are 30% - 50% less people on 2nd street at bar closing time this weekend compared to last weekend. It appears bar patrons are being more careful or avoiding the area due to the increased police presence. The cops are doing a fine job. I see them citing people for public intoxication and quickly moving to areas where large groups of people congregate.
Your comments seem to indicate that you feel an overall reduction in bar patronage on 2nd street to be a positive occurrence. Is my interpretation accurate?
Your comment "Your comments seem to indicate that you feel an overall reduction in bar patronage on 2nd street to be a positive occurrence. Is my interpretation accurate?" John Greet, is out of line. No where did Ruehle say that he thought that loss of bar business was positive or negative.
Saying 'thank you" and complaining about personal insults does not forgive your dogmatic passive aggressive police personality. At least Ruhle admits his faults, mistakes and tries very hard to improve himself and the community. You cannot police this website or give orders to us to behave to your standards.
If you want to be a reporter or assess the situation Greet, or suggest solutions, why don't you go down to 2nd street at 2:00 am night after night like Ruehle to see what the situation is?
Maybe a little insight into your own personal blindspots might iimprove your shortcomings?
"Siegal gives an American perspective of the police personality: ‘The typical police personality is thought to include authoritarianism, suspicion, racism, hostility, insecurity, conservatism, and cynicism’ (1986: 500). Potter (cited in Adlam 1981), commenting on the British police, suggests that: ‘It is commonly accepted that police officers tend to be authoritarian, dogmatic, and conservative’."
When Mr. Ruehle says “It appears bar patrons are being more careful *or avoiding the area* due to the increased police presence. The cops are doing a fine job.” (Emphasis added), I interpret his comments to mean that he feels an overall reduction in bar patronage on 2nd street to be a positive occurrence. Not being certain if my interpretation was accurate; I respectfully asked him if it was. This seemed to me to be a reasonable interpretation and a reasonable and respectfully means by which to attempt to confirm it. Why does my doing so bother you so much?
I do not desire to police this website and it is not my place to do so. I do not give orders to anyone; I simply offer what I believe to be reasonable and respectful suggestions for methods and behaviors that I feel might prove more constructive. It seems strange to me that when I attempt this I am vilified yet when others, yourself included do so; it is deemed right and proper. This blatant and transparent double-standard continues to amaze me.
I’ve been to 2nd Street at (and before and after) 2am more times in my career than I care to count, sunshine. Your assumption that I have not does you great discredit. My colleagues and I have worked that street and every single bar along it many, many times. We have taken considerable enforcement action of every type. They and I have fought there and have been injured there and have served sleeplessly there, night after night, while the area residents slept quietly and comfortably because others were keeping watch. Oh yes, sunshine, my colleagues and I know 2nd Street, and many other streets in many other parts of this city, by both day *and* night, very well indeed. Perhaps, had you simply asked me this, rather than assuming, I might have had the opportunity to answer differently? But that would have been the courteous way to go, I suppose.
Not answering for Ruehle, just commenting on your more and more disjointed poorly mannered under-researched dogmatic opinionated illogical meanie babble. What happened your ridiculous 16th century prose affection you used to use?
As for your comment,"At the risk of being vilified, yet again, by you for presuming to respond directly to comments you have directed to me, I'll respond anyway." John Greet
Why don't you keep your windy whiney word?.... Waaaaaaaaaaa"I choose to not play such games with you, or others, any longer." John Greet.
Greet, You might be an officer but you are no gentleman.
You just keep trying to spin it don't you. You sound like Rotondo, Schneiter, Lorbeer and DeLong who say the BSRA is against all businesses. That couldn't be further from the truth. I live in and appreciate Belmont Shore BECAUSE of the close proximity of the many fine businesses, 98% of which don't cause problems for residents. Similarly, I appreciate the fine service of 95% of the cops and have steadfastly asked for more.
What I don't appreciate is the 5% of command staff cops who ignore numerous resident concerns, officers who scold residents at BSRA meetings for asking for their help and officers who tell the Business Association that the police are having problems with residents making "fake" calls for service. To state residents have nothing better to do than make "fake" calls for service causes more problems and is ridiculous. It's those 5% of officers who choose to be part of the problem rather than the solution.
I don't know whether a reduction of patronage actually occurred. The science I used was the length of lines outside of the bars. There were few or shorter lines this weekend compared to last weekend. What was even more apparent that much less thug-like people were looking for trouble. There were still a bunch of thugs. But not as many.
If this interpretation on my part is inaccurate, I sincerely apologize.
I do not believe the BSRA is against all business nor have I ever said that I do so please avoid painting me with the same brush that you use so liberally upon others.
There’s nothing, whatsoever, wrong with being unhappy or dissatisfied with any of your public employees, Mr. Ruehle, least of all me. But if your words over the past several months have taught me anything it’s that your interpretation of events is not always necessarily the most accurate. So I sometimes question what you say and how you say it. Are you asserting that your statements should be above scrutiny, evaluation or inquiry? For this is all I have been doing; scrutinizing what you say, evaluating it against other available information, and inquiring as to why you have said what you have or in the way you have chosen to say it. Do you feel this is unreasonable of me? If so, do you also feel it is unreasonable when the same scrutiny, evaluation and inquiry are directed at me?
Lastly, would you care to answer my original question: “Your comments seem to indicate that you feel an overall reduction in bar patronage on 2nd street to be a positive occurrence. Is my interpretation accurate?”
From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: gdelong@rtpgroup.com
Subject: RE: Repaving of 2nd Street in Belmont Shore
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:49:31 -0600
Mr. Delong, Can you recommend somebody I can call to clean up puke, beer bottles, limes and taco bell wrappers from in front of my house. My 2 daughters, asked me this morning, Daddy what is all this yucky stuff in front of the house. My address is XXXXX and my name is XXXX. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Take care,
After months of calling Councilman DeLong a Coward for using anonymous names on the District Weekly and Press Telegram blogs, Councilman DeLong finally decided to use his real name on a non-threatening website. For those interested in reading Councilman DeLong's anonymous blogs, google "kathi4LB" and "PatBryant" to get a feel for how Councilman DeLong promotes himself when he thinks nobody knows who he is.
"John, Thanks for writing about this important issue. While there is a wide variety of opinions on this issue - some residents believe that the situation hasn't changed over the years and is part of being next to a business district - other residents assert that the environment has significantly changed for the worse over the years. Regardless of which point of view is correct, I have come to the conclusion that there is room for improvement. Accordingly, an effort is underway to build consensus among the various stakeholders as to what new policies would bring benefits to the Belmont Shore community. The City's Development Services Dept, Zoning, Business Licensing and Police Department is involved in this effort. As part of the process, resident comments are extremely valuable and I thank those residents who have contacted me either via email or phone and shared their experiences and suggestions for improvement. I am optimistic that we will soon have a plan that will result in an improved environment that will benefit all."
Gary DeLong Councilmember
3rd District
It's time for Gary DeLong to GROW UP and act like an ADULT!
Given that fact then, should Mr. DeLong, who, as you mention, has a sworn duty and responsibility to *all* of his 3rd District constituents -including those Mr. Ruehle does not speak for- continue to labor under this particular stalemate or, as he appears to have done, decide to attempt to work with a different Board member from Mr. Ruehle’s organization? Given the facts as I have presented them, in Mr. DeLong’s place, wouldn’t you do the same?
Given the facts as I have identified them, then, again I ask: If the goal is truly to get these challenges resolved for the *entire* community, rather than a very vocal few, and if that proves to be the ultimate result of these conversations, does it really matter whether Mr. DeLong works personally with Mr. Ruehle or one of his fellow BSRA Board members to get that goal accomplished?
Because if these challenges do get resolved, and they prove to be truly collaborative and constructive for the majority of all stakeholders concerned, then all Mr. Ruehle and his very vocal supporters have left to complain about is that these solutions were crafted and enacted without *them*.
To me that would seem the height of selfishness and egocentrism. But I readily acknowledge that this is simply my personal opinion, expressed as a private citizen, and quite possibly inaccurate. In any case thanks very much for your willingness to discuss this with me in a respectful manner.
He claims we don't have enough money to police all of the bars. Then he votes to approve more alcohol and entertainment licenses. How many sides of Councilman DeLong's mouth are there?
These are the same Councilmembers who tell Belmont Shore residents there are not enough police to control all of the bars. Then they go ahead and approve more alcohol and entertainment licenses without increasing the policing.
Councilman DeLong is advertising that he met with all of the Belmont Shore “STAKEHOLDERS” yesterday when he had a meeting in his office with the Police Department, Planning and Licensing Departments. He claimed to have representatives from the Business Association and the Residents Association at his meeting. Business Association President Gene Rotondo was invited as the representative from the Business Association. Councilman DeLong selected a new Resident’s Association Boardmember who recently condemned the Residents Association for its stance on public disturbance issues. I was not invited to attend his meeting. Other Resident’s Association boardmembers also requested to attend but were denied by Councilman DeLong.
Councilman DeLong is incapable of learning from his mistakes. He continues to try to surround himself with people who he thinks won’t challenge his one-sided decisions. He still can not comprehend why the general public shoots his ideas down that were formed in a bubble. Tonight may be a different story for Councilman DeLong. The residents who Councilman is meeting with tonight heard his line of BS 8-months ago when Councilman DeLong met with them the first time about the same problems. They are tired of his lame promises and defense of the 2% of 2nd street business that are causing all of the problems. He may have a tough time hanging on to this tiger’s tale.
He apparently has hundreds of supporters, many influential friends, ample resources and more than' four' Lawyers advising we have heard?
And you are??...right....obsessed with his tool? Good luck with that. He's spoken for and very loyal we hear.
One might surmise that the only thing that is going to get hurt is you and your croanies pocket book.
Bummer.
It’s all quiet here on the Eastern Front, but there are rumblings on the horizon. The carpetbaggers will be shocked when they run into this growing mob of low key well informed concerned LB citizens from universities, high-tech corporations, the entertainment biz, and who own local businesses that are sick of their back room insider selfish and corrupt ways. You think LBACI was bad? DIE HARD 5, baby!!!!
Perhaps we have are coming down to hard on the nocturnal crime on Second Street in the
Shore et al. A few dozen drunks;shootings;urinating in parking lots,streets,front years,
condoms in bushes,on lawns,in the street(who is against safe sex);vomiting on streets
and lawns(a natural reaction after eating the food in some(though not all) bars).Bar
personnel in some-though certainly not all- bars whose appearance is oh so inviting to gang bangers De Long et al has ushered in----are NOTHING COMPARED TO THE DAY
TIME PROBLEMS THE SHORE FACE!!!
Consider:
l.The on going ruckus cause by the six to ten rug rats that are racing their toy cars
on the UNPERMITTED race track front of Billings Hardware!!!
2.The excessive meowing and purring of the kittens in the pet shop down the street.
3.The moaning and groaning that echoes out on to the sidewalk from the shoe store
when the not so small woman is trying to squeeze a size 10 foot into a size four
shore.
4.The resounding racket from the racquetball courts from the Belmont club when its
windows are open.
5.The constant clanging of the Salvation Army Bell at Rite Aid.
6.The hair dryers from all the hair salons.When all are going at once it sounds like
the Concorde.
7.Those incessant fire engines and paramedics with their sirens that do not have
the consideration to wait!!!
8.Pollys;Starbucks,etc with their never ending grinding of coffee beans!!Can we not
have a permit condition that they serve only instant!!!
9.Have you ever walked by the Bayshore Library when the kids are there!!!One needs
the ear mufflers that a airport runway worker wears!!!
10.The continual popping of corks at Morreys!!!!!
11.The Christian Science Reading Room.When will they ever learn to read to
themselves.??? One can hardly hear the motor cycles zooming up to the bars
when the reading room is open!!!!
Let us address the real problems first before we pick on those that attract the low
life,the gang bangers,the criminal element that are so common place in an increasing
part of this City.
It is my understanding that a public meeting may now be set up. Based upon his lack of success during the Tot Lot public meeting he led to turn a children’s playground into a parking lot for Parking Commission Chairman Kurt Schneiter’s properties, I suspect Councilman DeLong will choose to not lead this meeting. His success at protecting and enhancing the special interests of his personal friends is painfully obvious to most residents. For this reason, watch Councilman DeLong distance himself from any public meeting that is held on this subject. If it is anything like the Horney Corner project, he will not show up so that he can claim the outcome is in question. Hopefully, the newsmedia will report on this public meeting when it is conducted so there will be a different side of the story from that of Councilman DeLong.
Reuctio ad absurdum-
To prove p (a declarative sentence).
Assume the opposite: Not p
Argue that from the assumption we would have to conclude q (another declaritive sentence)
Show that q is false (contradictory, absurd, wrong, not a acceptable solution,..... )
Conclude: p must be true
I, too, have found some of Greet's circular arguments to be pretty obfuscatory. If he got paid by the word, he'd be a millionaire.
Is it fair to assume that you and sunshinelb are two different people?
Thank you Commander Renaud and the fine officers of the LBPD.
me suggest however,being ever mindful of how tight the budget constraints
are,perhaps some micro management is warranted:
TO WIT:Unless there is a special event(game)which starts early;DO NOT
bring the officers line until 6:00PM OR 7:00PM.
Especially during the summer time they could be focusing in on the
Mother's Beach and Marine Stadium area.The citations they write there
could pay for their presence in the Shore.(For the benefit of the Commander those two areas are but two minuets away from the Shore-
just head down Bayshore to Appian Way-circa$800.00 in citations for
illegal activities at Mother's Beach and circa$600.00 at Marine Stadium.)
However, Commander Renaud made no mention of her increased deployment plan during Councilman DeLong’s neighborhood Association meeting on May 21, 2009 (FOUR DAYS BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY) where she downplayed residents videos posted on line per the below link. Commander Renaud implied during Councilman DeLong’s meeting that the fights were made up and videos only 2-minutes long. I was not allowed to explain the youtube video was only a 2 minute segment of an 11 minute long video and that the fight was going on for a while before the video camera was found. Councilman DeLong and Commander Renaud arranged for Business Association Director Brooke Kennard to speak over the top of me when I raised my hand and attempted to comment. When I objected, Commander Renaud ignored me and took questions from other people.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BSResident2009
Several people in the meeting asked questions about the 2nd street public disturbance problems. Commander Renaud described how she was limited by funding to provide additional police. At no time did she mention her “PLAN” to deploy more police between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Again, this meeting was FOUR DAYS BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY.
Furthermore, when residents requested more police assistance from Officer Hunt, the officer assigned to 2nd street, during the May 14, 2009 BSRA meeting (ELEVEN DAYS BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY), Officer Hunt told residents,“you are not going to get it.” When asked whether he could be quoted, Officer Hunt replied,“sure go ahead,” and repeated his statement.
If Commander Renaud had indeed planned for additonal police deployment for Memorial Day until Labor Day, why didn’t she or her staff mention it during meetings just days before Memorial Day when they were being begged for their help?
in checking IDs;it might help the cause,were there legislation that would allow
inn keepers,and employees,to seek restitution from the individual committing
the fraud against the inn keeper.
Given the specter of lost revenue to the Innkeeper and the income to all
the employees hopefully people would think more than once about using
false ID.
True it certainly does not stop all those that hire the illegals for under
the table cash work-but there are a different set of dynamics at play in
the instant case that might make it worthwhile to explore.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-belmont...
Now Police Chief Batts needs to figure out how to make it permanent. They claim this policing will only last until September. What do we do then? Last year, an officer was added temporarily in October and November because of the same problems experienced. With Long Beach State starting up again in the fall, what's to say it won't happen again this year?
The 2010 budget begins in September. In the past, the police claimed there was no money in the budget for increased late night police staffing in Belmont Shore. Yet it probably costs much more to add temporary overtime coverage after problems occur than to budget for additional cops to prevent the problems. I hope Police Chief Batts plans to budget for additional Shore police coverage this year so we don’t have to hear the same excuse that there is no money in the budget, until after a shooting or a murder occurs.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8939312.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15117345.html
http://www.shoreresidents.com/minutes%202008041...
http://www.youtube.com/user/BSResident2009
What was absurd is Commander Renaud introduced a person on her staff who made a presentation about how CLOSELY the police were working with a specific neighborhood group about a nuisance neighbor problem situation with juveniles. Coming after 16 months of asking for Commander Renaud’s assistance and getting zilch until someone was shot, I consider this presentation an insult.
Not only did Commander Renaud’s insulting presentation ignore the serious shooting situation that occurred in Belmont Shore, she made it appear as if she was proactively working with community groups, when that could not be further from the truth in my community. Like I said, we’ve been pleading for permanent help from her and the police for well over a year. It finally took residents' videos of public disturbances and a shooting to embarrass Commander Renaud into finally addressing the situation. However, she doesn’t want to talk about it at Councilman DeLong’s meeting. It's the typical bury your head in the sand methodology. If you don't talk about it, it didn't happen.
How to win friends and influence people. F... them Big Mike, thank you and keep up the good work.
RUEHLE FOR COUNCILMAN
Can I ask why a Neighborhood Association meeting is being held at noon on a workday? Does anyone else see the absurdity in THAT? They must be worried about all those drunk car thieves seen stumbling through the area jingling car keys right up until 2:00am because these new patrols end at 3:00am and what self-respecting auto burglar would operate past that hour=)
I suspect the police are hanging out in front of Belmont Station because it is the only Belmont Shore establishment that uses its entertainment license to blare loud amplified music out into the neighborhood. As a result of Belmont Station's recent illegal construction, there is no wall to enclose the loud music which is causing many residents to complain. I guess having police outside to cite Belmont Station is how the city corrects its violation of the nuisance condition of their business license. Hopefully, the city will make Belmont Station put the walls back up where they were before the illegal construction.
say cell phones of those that might be taking a mid night or 1:30 am stroll down down City sidewalks say in front of De Long' s and or Foster's residences;or
sitting in their car,on a public street near said residences.With De Long's penchant for using his laptop to keep in touch with his constituents this would
seem to be a natural extension of that desire.
Unfortunately it is not uncommon to still hear people walking down public
side walks and in public places listening and talking with someone via a
cell phone-some of which make it possible,unfortunately to hear their low life
dramas unfolding miles away.What better way to keep elected public officials
informed!!!!
According to the city, Commander Renaud is BUDGETED to have 144 sworn patrol officers in the East Division. Yet according to the recently updated website (below link), there are only 110 sworn patrol officers in the East Division. That begs the question of where are the other 34 patrol officers that could be patrolling the East Division? Furthermore, why does she keep telling residents that it is a money issue when she is operating 34 officers below what she is budgeted for? Those 34 officers are sorely needed in Belmont Shore on a permanent basis. Why does she keep making excuses for not having police staffing when she is budgeted for the additional staffing?
http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about/patrol_bu...
This compares to the West Division which is budgeted for 137 sworn officers. The below police website (below link) indicates the West Division has 138 sworn officers. The North and South Divisions are budgeted for 134 and 135 officers respectively. However the police website does not say how many actual officers are assigned in each area.
http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about/patrol_bu...
At approximately 1:00 am, I also witnessed a Legends doorman checking whether the coast was clear and then escorting female patrons out the back door of Legends and into the parking lot with drinks in their hands. It appears this was all captured on videotape by Legends owner Gene Rotondo’s video cameras. However, I’m confident this will very soon be deleted from the tapes to leave a Watergate type gap in the recorded videos.
One might argue there are more cops in the other Divisions because there is more crime in the other divisions. The Public Records Act data shows 32% of the city’s dispatched calls for service originate in the East Division. That means 16% of the city’s patrol officers are dedicated to addressing 32% of the calls for help from residents in the East Division.
One might argue there are more cops in the other Divisions because there is more SERIOUS crime in the other divisions. The Public Records Act data shows a similar 32% of the city’s Part 1 crimes against people and property were REPORTED in the East Division. Furthermore, 20% of violent crime (murder, manslaughter, forced rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) were REPORTED in the East Division. This means that 16% of the patrol officers REPORTED 32% of the city’s total Part 1 crimes which included 20% of the city’s total REPORTED violent crime. Imagine how many more Part 1 and violent crimes might have been reported if there were more East Division Police Officers.
The 110 total patrol officers (16% of total) assigned to the EAST DIVISION appear to be doing an excellent job REPORTING a significant portion of the city’s overall crime. Unfortunately, as the data suggests, there is not enough of them. We need more cops to address the crimes going unreported.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/jun09/2ndrape.htm
Is Commander Renaud so out of touch with her East Division that she didn’t know about the rape 3-days before the meeting? Is it possible she too learned about the rape in her Division by reading the LBReport.com? How else can one explain Commander Renaud not mentioning this rape during Councilman DeLong’s neighborhood association meeting, let alone not mentioning the other problems being addressed on 2nd street? I find it surprising that Commander Renaud, being a woman, would not have found rape to be a noteworthy event to mention to residents.
Commander Renaud’s presentation during the June 18, 2009 meeting was about how well her Division was working with neighborhood groups. Yeah, right. Apparently, the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA) doesn’t fall into that category. The rest of Commander Renaud’s discussion focused on burglaries and talked about how dumb resident were for actually leaving something of value in view in a known crime area.
Mr. Robles suggested that residents submit the below linked complaint form each time a problem occurs. Legend's address is 5236 E 2ND ST and their ABC license number is 454457.
http://www.abc.ca.gov/FORMS/ABC099E.pdf
Below is a link to Legends current ABC license.
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSDATA.asp?ID=20...
Below is a link to Legends previous ABC license. Notice that Legends has been suspended twice for serving minors. It make one wonder what this June 30, 2009 meeting will be about.
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=21...
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=20...
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=20...
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSdata.asp?ID=20...
Legends has its bar stools stacked already. There are about 20 people in Acapulco Inn and Belmont Station is pretty much vacant. However, Panama Joes had a short line outside the door when we walked by. It's nice to see the only late night bar whose owner is sensitive to residents is also seeing the most business. They deserve it.
Closing bars at 12am actually puts the drunks out on the street at that EXACT hour. Statistically regarding DUIs, a 12am closing time would make no impact, and may actually increase the number of booze hounds on the road in the Shore between 12 and 2 am.
http://www.bcstopdwi.com/files/bcstopdwi/pdfs/A...
http://www.mtccp.info/documents/DUIOffenderSurv...
In addition, nearly 1/3 of surveyed DUIs occurred by drinkers who were drinking at private residences or parties. (Underage drinkers are especially not likely to be drinking in a bar.)
Education programs for servers and "breathalyzers" in the bar would be a better approach than closing bars.
In most bars those machines are only used for contests on who can blow a higher BAC.
I have lived here since 1989 and the problem has ALWAYS been here, but I have to tell you that it has gotten FAR worse in the last 18-24 months. Maybe 2nd street has become a new hot spot? Maybe the reopening of Legends did the trick? I dunno, but it's really REALLY bad--far worse than at any time in my two decades here.
Let's face it--places like Legends, the AI and the Belmont Station are in business to serve drinks and this leads to folks getting bombed and getting in their cars and driving away. If the bars closed at 12, they would just get in thier cars and drive to a bar that's open till 2. Or maybe they would just start OUT at a bar that stays open 'till 2, which would be fine with me but really, really lousy for the bars on 2nd street.
When the new County Line and Sachi replacement (on council agenda this week for approval) get going there will be more competition and even lower standards for operation.
The quality of life issue is HUGE! I absolutely support earlier closing times for this reason alone. I totally sympathize with how nightmarish it must be to deal with drunks on your property at all hours.
And I do think that individuals should be held accountable for their personal behavior. I don't buy that you are too drunk to realize you can't drive (in fact I ALways realize it's too late to drive and I keep a cash stash on these occasions--it only cost less than $10 bucks to me and all my girlfriends home safely, I personally just ride my bike down to my car the next day to get it). I ALWAYS plan on using a cab if I go to the Shore for "Ladies Night Out" There is no excusing personal responsibility. I don't even think bartenders and servers are ultimately responsible--it is the patrons themselves who need to behave responsibly.
Education is the answer, more police may help...
Ultimately the neighbors would be better off with earlier closing times--at least Sun thru Thurs.
My beef all along has been with muddying the waters with all other unrelated issues.
Note that I never said that all bars should have earlier closing times or that bars should be closed early every night.
Now today you say this to HighHat "The quality of life issue is HUGE! I absolutely support earlier closing times for this reason alone........ Ultimately the neighbors would be better off with earlier closing times--at least Sun thru Thurs. "
LBCityGirl, Nothing has changed in Belmont Shore in the last 3 days since your opinion has changed 180 degrees. I would suggest that you take the time to study the issues, learn from Mike Ruehle the President of the Belmont Shore Residents Association and his research before you post your opinions/attack people for their positions on issues. Perhaps you should follow your own advice "Education is the answer" and try to learn or at least imagine stepping into someone elses shoes, instead of shouting at people for no reason. The issues will not be muddy and much clearer when you have some idea what you are talking about.
Overall, you can close the bars earlier, and it may make it a bit quieter in the Shore between 12-2, but the bars will still be there, the problems will still be there.
If as you claim, it is the bars responsiblility (not the individual patrons?) than at some point you will still need to remedy the Shore problem for the rest of the 22 hours of the day.
I have said repeatedly I am sympathetic to the Shore residents' concerns. But as a more nuetral third party observer, I also can see how the bar owners and employees there have some valid economic concerns.
I think you and Mike need to expand your horizons and consider there may be other more successful solutions than just going ahead and closing the bars earlier.
I think there may even be FUN ways of doing this that would make bar owners and bar patron excited to cooperate. But a meglomaniac approach is eventually going to fail, if for no other reason than that it has generated so much animosity in the Shore.
It's time to stop fighting and start looking for compromises that make everyone happy.
What you seem to be doing now is acting like a complete bubblehead and pathetically sucking up to the few people left who might respond to your posts.
Just why do you "feel" that you are equipped to give anyone adivce, "I think you and Mike need to expand your horizons and consider there may be other more successful solutions than just going ahead and closing the bars earlier."
Where did Mike or I say that the only solution was to close the bars down earlier??????? Mike and I have offered other solutions but you would not know because you are too busy yapping to actually read and comprehend what is being said.
When this issue first hit the news, 2nd street business, the Councilman, the Mayor, police, and city manager would not even acknowledge that there was a drunken problem in Belmont Shore.
For the past 3 years Mike Ruehle and other residents spent 1,000 of hours researching, meeting with the community, lawyers, police, appearing at city council meetings (and getting ignored), writing letters, calling the ABC, and putting themselves in danger by video taping fights and other drunken behavior.
And yet instead of being held in high esteem for their efforts to improve the community, these fine citizens like Mike R and others have gotten their reputations tarnished by the PT, Gazette, the BSBA, the Mayor, the Councilman, and the police and YOU.
Now you come up with this comment,
"I think you and Mike need to expand your horizons and consider there may be other more successful solutions than just going ahead and closing the bars earlier.
"I think there may even be FUN ways of doing this that would make bar owners and bar patron excited to cooperate. But a meglomaniac approach is eventually going to fail, if for no other reason than that it has generated so much animosity in the Shore. It's time to stop fighting and start looking for compromises that make everyone happy."
Given what has been happening on 2nd street and the efforts made by residents your above comments are insulting to those involved.
Here I will offer you a suggestion: Why don't you do something about the problem instead of attacking, yapping, and offering up conflicting sucking up opinions?
I remember the good old days a couple years ago when residents did not have to worry about guns, rapes and alcohol related violence in our Belmont Shore Community.